Can Affordable Care Act Ruling Help the Defense Bar? Max Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer July 2, 2015 | 0 Comments SHARE PRINT REPRINTS Tomasz Papuga A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed for the second time the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but it also may have given the defense bar a little more of a bargaining chip when it comes to personal-injury cases. With the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, the court denied a second bid to overturn the controversial law, also known as Obamacare, which is aimed at getting health insurance coverage for all Americans.
Read More
New York Appellate Court Extends Additional Insured Coverage to Real Estate Manager’s Parent Company
In GMM Realty, LLC v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, the New York Appellate Court addressed a situation where the parent company of a real estate manager of the insured brought a declaratory judgment action against the insurer seeking defense and indemnification as an additional insured for a personal injury suit. After examining the Complaint and the relevant policy language, the Court held that the allegations of the Complaint suggested a reasonable possibility of coverage that triggered the insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying personal injury suit arose after the plaintiff slipped and fell near the entrance of
Read More
LAW360 Publishes Interesting Insurance Cases To Be Decided In Second Half of 2015
Here is the article: Insurance Cases To Watch In The 2nd Half Of 2015 Share us on: By Jeff Sistrunk Law360, Los Angeles (June 19, 2015, 3:21 PM ET) — Attorneys are eagerly awaiting the California Supreme Court’s decision on when policyholders can transfer insurance rights during mergers and corporate restructurings, and anticipating guidance from New York’s high court on complex allocation and exhaustion issues in asbestos lawsuits. Here are five cases that insurance attorneys will be tracking in the second half of the year. Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court The California Supreme Court is mulling over whether to disturb
Read More
Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Rules That Punitive Damages Are Not Recoverable Against an Insurer
In an opinion predicting Pennsylvania state law, the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled that punitive damages awarded against an insured in a personal injury suit are not recoverable in a later breach of contract or bad faith suit against the insurer. In Wolfe v. Allstate, the Court examined Pennsylvania’s long-standing public policy regarding the uninsurability of punitive damages and predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would conclude that, in a bad faith action against an insurer, an insured may not collect as compensatory damages the punitive damages awarded against the insured in the underlying suit. In this case,
Read More
NJ Supreme Court Rules Superior Court Has Concurrent Jurisdiction When Worker’s Employment Status is Disputed
In Kotsovska v. Liebman, the New Jersey Supreme Court grappled with the question of whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction deprives the Superior Court of jurisdiction under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”) to determine a worker’s employment status in cases where the defendant raises the exclusive remedy provision of the WCA as an affirmative defense to the worker’s Complaint. Scrutinizing the WCA, prior precedent and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the Court held that in cases where a genuine dispute exists as to the employment status of the worker — whether an employee or independent contractor — and the worker
Read More
NJ Appeals Court Rules Mold in Attic Caused by Condensation Not Covered by Mold Endorsement
The New Jersey Appeals Court recently addressed the interplay of a mold exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy with a Mold Endorsement that allowed limited coverage for mold damage caused by “fortuitous direct physical damage or destruction.” In Kavesh v. Franklin Mutual Insurance, the Court examined the language of the mold exclusion of the policy, as well as the Endorsement providing limited coverage and found the provisions to be unambiguous. Based on the facts of the claim and the mold damage to the insureds’ home, the court held that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the mold growth was a result
Read More
NY Top Court Affirms Bright Line Rule of Strict Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs
Addressing two separate, but similar lawsuits involving bicycle collisions caused by dogs, a divided New York Court of Appeals held that the dogs’ owners could not be sued for negligence based on the owners’ inadequate supervision of the animals. In Doerr v. Goldsmith and Dobinski v. Lockhart, Plaintiffs were injured when they collided with unleashed dogs while riding their bicycles. Relying on longstanding precedent, the Court determined that Plaintiffs could not bring negligence causes of action against the dogs’ owners, since the only basis for suit under the law was a theory of strict liability by showing an animal’s vicious
Read More
NJ Court Denies Insured’s Attempt to Reform Policy Post-Accident to Increase UI/UIM Benefits
In Drysten v. Chiesa and USAA, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court found that the insurer was immune from suit under the New Jersey statute governing immunity for insurers based on the insured’s election of motor vehicle coverages. While the insured attempted to gain additional benefits by having the policy reformed post-accident, the court determined that the insurer’s strict compliance with the statutory requirements and the insured’s breach of her duty to read insurance documents and alert the insurer as to any inconsistencies in coverage, resulted in a finding of immunity for the insurer. Plaintiff was injured
Read More
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Employer’s Liability Exclusion of CGL Policy Due to Ambiguous Meaning of “The Insured”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed the interpretation of an employer’s liability exclusion in a commercial general liability policy to determine its scope in excluding coverage when the policy applies to more than one insured. In Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. Politsopoulos, the Court determined that the term “the insured” does not signify “all insureds” in cases where a commercial general liability policy makes varied use of the definite term “the insured” and the indefinite term “any insured.” The Court concluded that the use of the definite and indefinite articles created an ambiguity, such that “the insured” may be reasonably
Read More
New York Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Attempt to Circumvent Assault & Battery Exclusion of CGL Policy
Most commercial general liability policies issued to bars and restaurants specifically exclude coverage for bodily injury arising out of an assault and battery. In order to avoid this limitation, Plaintiffs often try to trigger coverage by alleging that the insured’s negligence was the cause of the injury—not the actual assault and battery. This strategy may work in some jurisdictions, but it won’t work in New York. Following precedent set by the New York Court of Appeals in 1995, the Supreme Court of New York County held in Hermitage Insurance Company v. Beer-Bros, Inc. that the insurer had no duty to
Read More
