A chemical company sought a declaratory judgment to establish its right to insurance coverage for environmental damage resulting from its operation of a DDT plant. The company’s insurers denied coverage based on “qualified pollution exclusions” (QPEs) in their comprehensive general liability policies, which excluded coverage for pollution unless the discharge was “sudden and accidental” or, in some policies, “sudden, unintended and unexpected.” The company argued that “sudden” could reasonably be interpreted to include gradual, unintended pollution events, and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence, including drafting history and industry statements, to support this interpretation.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, at the parties’ suggestion, divided the case into phases and, in Phase II-A, addressed the interpretation of the QPEs. The parties stipulated to the use of exemplar QPEs for interpretation. The trial court excluded the company’s proffered extrinsic evidence, reasoning that California appellate courts had uniformly held that “sudden” in this context unambiguously does not mean gradual, and that it was bound by this precedent. The court certified a question of law for appellate review regarding whether prior judicial construction of an insurance policy term precludes consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine ambiguity.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, as a general rule, prior judicial construction of a policy term does not categorically preclude a trial court from considering extrinsic evidence to expose a latent ambiguity. However, in this case, the court found that California appellate decisions have uniformly and specifically rejected the interpretation that “sudden” can mean “gradual” in the context of these pollution exclusions. Therefore, the trial court correctly excluded the extrinsic evidence as irrelevant, and the petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

A woman was injured while visiting a property owned by a couple who were seeking tenants for a mobile home located on their land. The injury occurred when she stepped into a gap between the entryway stairs and the mobile home, a gap created during ongoing repairs. The couple had a homeowners insurance policy with State Mutual Insurance Company, but the policy’s declarations page listed a different property as the covered premises. The injured woman sued the couple for negligence, and the parties later entered into a settlement and stipulated judgment, with the couple paying part of the judgment and the woman seeking the remainder from the insurer under Maine’s reach-and-apply statute.The Superior Court of Waldo County granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the insurance policy did not cover the property where the injury occurred. The court determined that the property was not an “insured location” under the policy and that the injury arose out of a condition of the uninsured premises, thus falling within a policy exclusion. The woman appealed this decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo, considering both the interpretation of the insurance policy and the application of the reach-and-apply statute. The court held that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of a premises owned by the insured but not listed as an insured location. The court also found that the property in question was not an “insured location” because the insureds did not reside there and it was not listed in the policy declarations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the policy did not provide coverage for the injury. View "Rowe v. State Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In this case, Christopher C. Brown, through his company Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME), owned a Memphis music studio and insured both the studio and its equipment with Hanover American Insurance Company. John Falls, a musician, leased Studio B and its equipment from Brown and also obtained insurance from Hanover for the equipment and lost business income. In 2015, the studio was damaged by arson, and both Brown and Falls submitted insurance claims. Hanover discovered Brown had forged receipts for equipment purchases and sued to recover advance payments and for a declaratory judgment of no further liability. Brown, Falls, and another lessee counter-sued for breach of contract. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Falls was awarded $2.5 million for equipment loss and $250,000 for business income, while Brown was found to have committed insurance fraud.Hanover moved to set aside the verdict under Rule 50(b), which the district court granted. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Hanover had forfeited its Rule 50(b) motion by failing to make a Rule 50(a) motion as to Falls, and ordered reinstatement of the jury verdict. Subsequent proceedings included a federal interpleader action and a parallel state court action between Falls and TME. The district court enjoined the state action, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the injunction.In the present appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s allocation of the insurance payout, holding that Hanover was precluded by res judicata from challenging Falls’s recovery on grounds that could have been raised earlier. The court found the district court’s error in interpreting the wrong lease was harmless and upheld the allocation of funds based on the value of Falls’s leasehold interest. The court also held that Tennessee public policy barred Brown from recovering his allocated share due to his insurance fraud. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment" on Justia Law

Katherine Martinez was severely injured as a passenger in a multi-vehicle accident in Florida. The driver of the truck that struck the SUV, Diana Guevara, was insured by GEICO, but the truck was not listed on her policy, raising a coverage issue. GEICO investigated the accident, requested medical information from the victims, and, thirty-two days after receiving notice, tendered the full $20,000 policy limit for a global settlement. Martinez rejected the offer and sued Guevara in state court, ultimately obtaining a stipulated final judgment for $2,000,000. Guevara assigned her claims against GEICO to Martinez, who then sued GEICO in federal court for bad faith, seeking to recover the excess judgment.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to GEICO, adopting the magistrate judge’s finding that GEICO did not act in bad faith as a matter of law. The court found that Martinez failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer bad faith, particularly regarding GEICO’s investigation and settlement efforts. Martinez appealed, arguing that the totality of the evidence could support a finding of bad faith due to alleged delays and handling of the claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law and the federal summary judgment standard, Martinez did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that GEICO acted in bad faith in investigating or settling the claim. The court clarified that mere negligence or delay does not meet the standard for bad faith and found GEICO’s actions reasonable given the circumstances, including the coverage dispute and multiple claimants. The district court’s summary judgment for GEICO was affirmed. View "Martinez v. GEICO Casualty Company" on Justia Law

The case concerns an automobile accident that occurred in rural Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, on January 3, 2024. James Godwin, a resident of Dallas County and employee of Talton Communications, Inc., was driving a company vehicle when he was rear-ended by Desi Bernard Peoples, a resident of Fayette County. Godwin subsequently filed suit in the Dallas Circuit Court against Peoples, his employer Talton, and Penn National Security Insurance Company, which provided uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Godwin’s claims included negligence and wantonness, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, and a workers’ compensation claim against Talton. Godwin received all medical treatment for his injuries in Dallas County, where he and his wife reside and work.After the complaint was filed, Penn National moved to sever the workers’ compensation claim and to transfer the remaining claims to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, arguing that transfer was warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice under Alabama’s forum non conveniens statute, § 6-3-21.1. The Dallas Circuit Court denied the motion to sever but ordered the workers’ compensation claim to be tried separately. The court also denied the motion to transfer, finding insufficient evidence that Tuscaloosa County was a significantly more convenient forum or that Dallas County had only a weak connection to the case.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed Penn National’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel transfer. The Court denied the petition, holding that Penn National failed to meet its burden of showing that Tuscaloosa County was significantly more convenient or that Dallas County’s connection to the case was weak. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is entitled to deference when both venues are proper and that the evidence presented did not justify overriding that choice. View "Ex parte Penn National Security Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A fatal motor vehicle accident occurred after a patron, Bailey, was served alcohol at two establishments, including one operated by the appellants. Bailey drove the wrong way on an interstate, resulting in a collision that killed himself and five members of the Abbas family. The Abbas family’s estates sued the restaurant operators (collectively “Roosters”) for dram shop liability and negligent training. At the time, Roosters held both a businessowners policy (BOP) and a commercial umbrella policy (CUP) with Grange Insurance Company. The BOP provided $1,000,000 in liquor liability coverage, which was undisputed. The dispute centered on whether the CUP also provided liquor liability coverage, particularly in light of an endorsement (CU 47) that replaced the liquor liability exclusion in the CUP.The Fayette Circuit Court found the language of the CUP and CU 47 ambiguous when considered alongside the BOP, reasoning that umbrella policies are intended to supplement underlying coverage. The court granted summary judgment to Roosters, holding that the CUP provided additional coverage. Grange appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, finding CU 47 unambiguously replaced the liquor liability exclusion and precluded coverage under the CUP. The appellate court remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment in Grange’s favor.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case de novo. It held that CU 47 unambiguously replaced the liquor liability exclusion in the CUP, leaving no basis for additional coverage. The court enforced the policy as written, declining to consider extrinsic evidence or arguments not preserved below. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the commercial umbrella policy does not provide liquor liability coverage for the claims at issue. View "GEORGETOWN CHICKEN COOP, LLC V. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

Two former customers of an insurance company filed suit after their vehicles were declared total losses and the insurer paid out claims based on the vehicles’ “actual cash value” (ACV). The insurance policy defined ACV as the “market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs.” The insurer calculated market value using a system that included a “projected sold adjustment” (PSA), which reduced the list prices of comparable vehicles to reflect typical consumer negotiation. The plaintiffs alleged that the PSA always resulted in an artificially low valuation, breaching the policy’s requirement to pay true market value.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that the plaintiffs met the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). However, the court determined that individual questions about how each vehicle’s ACV was calculated predominated over common questions, as required by Rule 23(b)(3), and therefore denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the PSA was not facially unlawful and that determining whether each class member was harmed would require individualized inquiries into each person’s vehicle valuation. Because liability and injury could not be established through common evidence, individual issues would predominate over common ones. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying class certification, holding that class certification was inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) due to the predominance of individualized questions. View "AMBROSIO V. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased a one-year homeowners insurance policy through an insurance broker, after previously having a long-term relationship with that broker, which had been interrupted for two years when the plaintiffs used a different broker. After the policy was issued, the insurer inspected the plaintiffs’ home and found a defect in the siding, requiring repairs as a condition for continued coverage. The insurer communicated this requirement and the risk of nonrenewal to the broker, but the parties disputed whether the broker relayed this information to the plaintiffs. The insurer did not receive proof of repair and sent a nonrenewal notice to the plaintiffs by certified mail, which the plaintiffs claimed they never received. The policy expired without renewal, and shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs’ home was destroyed by fire. The insurer denied coverage because the policy had lapsed.The plaintiffs sued the broker and the brokerage firm in the Superior Court, alleging, among other claims, that the broker negligently failed to notify them of the insurer’s communications and the impending nonrenewal. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the broker, finding no legal duty to notify the plaintiffs of nonrenewal after procuring the policy. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the broker’s duty ended once the policy was procured, absent evidence of an agreement to assist with renewal or maintain coverage, and that the plaintiffs’ long-standing relationship with the broker was insufficient to create such a duty.The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. It held that, under Connecticut law, an insurance broker generally owes no duty to notify clients of an insurer’s intent not to renew a policy after the broker has procured the requested coverage, unless the broker has expressly or impliedly agreed to assist with renewal. The Court found no evidence of such an agreement or ongoing duty in this case. View "Deer v. National General Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc. supplied heating fuel to customers in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2019. The fuel contained higher-than-standard levels of biodiesel, averaging 35% between 2015 and 2018, exceeding the 5% industry standard for ordinary heating oil. Customers alleged that this biodiesel-blended fuel was incompatible with conventional heating systems, caused repeated heat loss, and resulted in permanent damage to their equipment. They brought a class action in Massachusetts state court against Peterson’s and its officers, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence, including allegations that Peterson’s continued supplying the fuel despite customer complaints and only later disclosed the high biodiesel content.United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company had issued Peterson’s a series of commercial general liability and umbrella policies. The insurers initially defended Peterson’s in the class action under a reservation of rights, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that they owed no duty to defend or indemnify Peterson’s. The insurers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims did not arise from a covered “occurrence” and that policy provisions limiting or excluding coverage for failure to supply applied. The district court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute as to whether Peterson’s actions were accidental and holding that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and did not apply.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the underlying complaint alleged a potentially covered “occurrence” because it was possible Peterson’s did not intend or expect the property damage alleged. The court also held that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and, under Massachusetts law, must be construed in favor of coverage. The district court’s summary judgment rulings were affirmed. View "United States Fire Insurance Company v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Adir International, LLC operates a chain of retail stores, Curacao, which primarily serves low-income, Spanish-speaking immigrants in California, Nevada, and Arizona. Curacao offers store credit to customers, with over 90 percent of sales made on store credit. Since at least 2012, Curacao has offered optional “account protection” services (AGP Basic and AGP Plus) to credit customers, with AGP Plus including a credit property insurance component. Curacao was licensed as a credit insurance agent, but its sales associates, who were not licensed or endorsed, received bonuses for selling these insurance products. The AGP program allowed customers to defer payments under certain circumstances, but the fees for AGP often exceeded finance charges, and the program was highly profitable for Curacao.The People of the State of California filed a civil enforcement action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that Adir and its owner, Ron Azarkman, violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) through predicate violations of the Insurance Code and the Unruh Retail Installment Sales Act (Unruh Act). After a bench trial, the Superior Court found that Adir and Azarkman violated the Insurance Code by selling insurance through unlicensed employees, failing to use approved training materials, and providing required disclosures only after enrollment. The court held Azarkman personally liable due to his control and knowledge of the practices. However, the court ruled that the sale of account protection services did not violate the Unruh Act.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s findings regarding the Insurance Code violations and Azarkman’s personal liability, rejecting arguments about primary jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, and statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling on the Unruh Act, holding that the Act limits all permissible fees to those specifically authorized, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "P. v. Adir Internat., LLC" on Justia Law