In an issue of first impression, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed whether an insured forfeits the right to insurance coverage when it settles a lawsuit without the insurer’s consent, in a case where the insurer has defended the suit subject to a reservation of rights. In Babcock & Wilcox v. American Nuclear Insurers, the Court answered that question in the negative and adopted a fair and reasonable standard limited to those cases where an insured accepts a settlement offer after and insurer breaches its duty by refusing a fair and reasonable settlement while maintaining its reservation of rights,
Read More
New York Court Holds Boat Owner Not an Insured Under Policy Issued to Marina That Leased the Owner’s Boat
In Rosano v. Freedom Boat Corp., a boat owner brought suit against a marina and its insurer, American Modern Insurance Group, Inc. (“American Modern”), for damages to the boat he leased to the marina. The owner brought causes of action for breach of contract and failure to pay a claim against American Modern, claiming that he was an insured under the policy issued to the marina. After reviewing the policy language, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that the owner was not named as an insured or additional insured and entered summary judgment
Read More
North Carolina Federal Court Will Address Builder’s Faulty Workmanship in Coverage Dispute
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company recently filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to obtain a ruling that its commercial general liability policy does not cover the insured builder for faulty workmanship. In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Hyde, Nationwide requests a declaratory judgment that coverage is not owed to a builder who was sued by homeowners for property damage that occurred as a result of the insured constructing the home on top of improperly compacted fill soil. The homeowners were awarded $350,000.00 in damages in an underlying suit against
Read More
New York Court Holds Life Insurer Must Pay Claim After Failing to Strictly Comply With Statutory Notice Requirements Regarding Policy Termination
A New York court found that Allstate Life Insurance Company was required to pay the proceeds of a life insurance policy because it had failed to properly notify the insured of the termination of the policy. In Rivera v. Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York, the Suffolk County trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the insured and found as a matter of law that the insurer must pay the $100,000 policy limits for failing to comply with the notice requirements of Insurance Law § 3211. The court noted that its decision was in line with public policy
Read More
New York Court Holds Life Insurer Can Deduct Unpaid Premiums from Policy’s Death Benefit
Applying New Jersey law, the the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the John Hancock Life Insurance Company was entitled to withhold unpaid premium payments from a life policy’s death benefit. In John Hancock Life Insurance Company v. Katzman, the policy was in default when the insured died. Interpreting the words of the policy and finding no ambiguity, the court held that the policy allowed the insurer to subtract the unpaid monthly premiums from the policy’s death benefit as a matter of law. The facts and procedural history of the Katzman case are
Read More
Insurers Challenge Amtrak’s Wind Claims In Sandy Litigation – Read More Here
Insurers Say Amtrak Can’t Force Wind Claims Into Sandy Suit Share us on: By Joe Van Acker Law360, New York (June 30, 2015, 7:37 PM ET) — Excess insurers told a New York federal judge on Tuesday not to undo a recent decision dismissing them from Amtrak’s suit seeking compensation for rail damage caused by Superstorm Sandy, claiming that Amtrak has contradicted itself by trying to shoehorn wind-related claims into its suit. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., Lexington Insurance Co., Steadfast Insurance Co. and others said Amtrak changed course after the court granted their motion for summary judgment by claiming that
Read More
Interesting Article On How Affordable Healthcare Act Can Benefit Defense Bar
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
