Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

After a motor vehicle accident in October 2020, Maryann Thomas sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. She filed a lawsuit in March 2021. Liberty’s legal representation changed several times, with attorney transitions and withdrawals occurring between law firms in 2021 and 2022. Thomas sent requests for admission to Liberty’s previous counsel in June 2022, but Liberty’s new attorneys were not notified nor served with these requests. Thomas’s counsel did not follow up or inform the new attorneys about the requests, and Liberty did not respond.Thomas later moved for summary judgment, arguing that Liberty’s failure to respond meant the requests were deemed admitted under Oklahoma law, establishing liability for coverage. Liberty’s new counsel asserted they had no knowledge of the requests until Thomas moved for summary judgment a year later, asked the court to allow withdrawal of the admissions, and opposed summary judgment. The District Court of Oklahoma County granted summary judgment to Thomas based on deemed admissions, finding liability, and denied Liberty’s motion for summary judgment. The district court certified its order for immediate appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the certified interlocutory order. It held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Liberty to withdraw the admissions. The Supreme Court found that permitting withdrawal would serve the presentation of the merits and that Thomas was not prejudiced, especially given the early stage of litigation and notice of disputed coverage. The Court reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Thomas and remanded with instructions to allow Liberty to withdraw the admissions. View "THOMAS & GOZA v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO." on Justia Law

A jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff over $18.5 million in damages, which, after adding costs and interest, resulted in a judgment of more than $20 million. To stay enforcement of this judgment pending appeal, the defendant was required to post a bond under California law. The defendant, despite having about $1.75 million in assets, asserted that he could not obtain a bond in the statutorily required amount, which was over $30 million, and requested the trial court to waive or reduce the bond to the limit of his insurance policy ($1.25 million).The Superior Court of Sacramento County considered the defendant’s financial declaration and a supplemental declaration detailing the costs and collateral requirements for various bond levels from a bond broker. After evaluating these submissions and hearing arguments, the trial court found the defendant qualified for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240 and ordered him to post a reduced bond of $1.25 million. The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition, challenging the trial court’s interpretation of “indigent” within the statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the bond reduction.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that “indigent” under section 995.240 is not limited to those in extreme poverty but includes any person unable to obtain sufficient sureties, considering access to the judicial process. The trial court retains discretion to weigh all relevant factors, including the nature of the obligation and the potential harm to the beneficiary. The appellate court also found no evidentiary error in the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s declarations. Accordingly, the petition was denied, and the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Guzman v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A couple alleged that their home in Union Springs suffered significant roof damage from a storm in January 2024. They had a homeowners’ insurance policy with an insurer and submitted a repair estimate of $9,112.02 to the company, which responded with a significantly lower settlement offer. The couple sued the insurer in the Bullock Circuit Court, claiming breach of contract and bad faith, and alleged a systematic practice by the insurer of underpaying roof claims. During discovery, the couple requested documents relating to the handling of roof claims. The insurer objected, citing concerns over the breadth of the requests and the confidential nature of certain documents.After both sides submitted competing motions for protective orders, the circuit court entered an order that allowed some confidential materials produced by the insurer to be used not only in the couple’s case but also in other cases handled by their counsel involving similar claims against the insurer. The order also permitted sharing information with governmental agencies under certain conditions. The insurer petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate the protective order and require a more restrictive, non-sharing version.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that there is no per se prohibition against sharing provisions in protective orders, provided there are adequate safeguards. The court concluded that the circuit court did not exceed its discretion in allowing sharing with government entities. However, it required the protective order to be modified to (1) specify the exact cases in which sharing is permitted, (2) require all recipients to agree in writing to be bound by the order and submit to the circuit court’s jurisdiction, and (3) clarify obligations for returning or destroying confidential materials at the conclusion of each case. The petition for mandamus was granted in part and denied in part, and the writ was issued accordingly. View "Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who worked for Greene County sued the Greene County Commission, alleging negligence, outrage, trespass, and nuisance due to injuries from rodent infestations and faulty building systems in the county courthouse. The Greene County Commission was a member of a self-insurance fund operated by the Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc. The association provided a defense to the county commission in the tort action under a reservation of rights. In June 2024, the association initiated a declaratory-judgment action against the county commission and the county workers, seeking a determination that certain claims were excluded from coverage under the insurance agreement and asserting it had no duty to defend the county commission in the tort action.The Greene Circuit Court heard motions to dismiss the declaratory-judgment action, with the county workers arguing it was not ripe until the tort action was resolved and the county commission contending the association was obligated to defend. On December 1, 2025, the circuit court stayed the declaratory-judgment action pending the outcome of the tort action, reasoning that resolving coverage issues could supersede issues already pending in the tort action.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the association’s petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the circuit court’s stay. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by staying the declaratory-judgment action as it related to the association’s request for a determination of its duty to defend. The court granted the petition and issued a writ directing the circuit court to proceed with the declaratory-judgment action on the duty-to-defend issue, but not on indemnification issues. The disposition was to vacate the stay as to the duty to defend. View "Ex parte Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

A church with property insurance sustained windstorm damage and submitted a claim to its insurer. When the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, the church invoked the insurance policy’s binding appraisal process. Each party selected an appraiser, and the appraisers agreed on an award, which the insurer paid and the church accepted. Afterward, the church alleged it discovered additional, previously hidden damages, and the insurer refused to pay more than the appraisal award. The church then sued, claiming breach of contract and seeking to set aside the binding appraisal based on the later-discovered damage.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings to the insurer, finding that the appraisal award was binding and there was no evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake to justify reopening the award. The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the church’s complaint pleaded mistake with sufficient particularity to satisfy Ohio’s Civil Rule 9(B), which requires that mistake be pled with particularity.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that a binding appraisal award may only be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake, defined as an egregious error undermining the intent of the agreement, not a mere error in judgment. The court further concluded that, to plead mistake with particularity under Civil Rule 9(B), the facts alleged must satisfy the elements of mistake. Since the church only alleged that additional, hidden damages were discovered after the appraisal, and did not plead facts constituting a manifest mistake by the appraisers, the complaint did not state a claim for mistake. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Tenth District’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. View "One Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After enduring physical and sexual abuse while in the care of James and Susan McLaurie as a young child, the plaintiff obtained a $150 million judgment against both individuals in Missouri state court. Seeking to collect on this judgment, the plaintiff subsequently filed a new action in state court against the McLauries and their homeowner’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, asserting equitable garnishment claims against all three and additional claims, including bad faith and breach of contract, against Liberty Mutual.Liberty Mutual removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, invoking diversity jurisdiction. At the time of removal, James McLaurie had not yet been served but later entered an appearance. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing a lack of complete diversity, and James McLaurie joined this motion, expressly refusing to consent to removal. The district court disagreed that diversity was lacking but found that the absence of consent from all defendants rendered removal procedurally defective under the requirement of unanimity in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). The court granted remand on this procedural ground.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit examined whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. The appellate court held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), remand orders based on procedural defects—such as a lack of unanimity among defendants—are not reviewable, so long as the district court’s basis was at least “colorably” procedural. The court determined that the district court’s characterization of its order as resting on a procedural defect was colorable. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "G.T. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A commercial truck driver was injured in an accident while operating a tractor-trailer in Missouri. The tractor was registered in Michigan and titled to a limited liability company (LLC) solely owned by the plaintiff, while the trailer was owned by a different LLC. Under a lease agreement, the plaintiff’s LLC leased the tractor to the other LLC, and the plaintiff exclusively operated the tractor. Insurance coverage for the tractor was provided by a policy that excluded personal protection insurance (PIP) when the vehicle was used to transport cargo, and the other LLC’s insurance did not cover PIP for the tractor. The plaintiff, who lived with his parents in Michigan, was not a named insured on his father’s auto policy, nor was the tractor listed as a covered vehicle.After the accident, the plaintiff sued several insurers, arguing that one of them should provide PIP benefits under Michigan’s no-fault act. The Wayne Circuit Court denied summary disposition to one insurer and dismissed others from the case. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, finding insufficient evidence to classify the plaintiff as the tractor’s owner or registrant. It ruled that the plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits was not barred and that his father’s insurer was the highest priority insurer.The Michigan Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, held that the plaintiff was an “owner” of the tractor under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) because he had the right to use the vehicle in a manner consistent with ownership for more than 30 days. The Court found that his exclusive, regular use and control of the tractor, as the sole member and agent of the LLC, satisfied the statutory definition of ownership. Because he failed to maintain the required insurance, the plaintiff was excluded from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. View "Abdulla v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In March 2010, a motor vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 95 South in Cranston, Rhode Island, involving Julie DeOliveira, her daughter Maxine, and a truck driven by Greg Trecaso, who was insured by Star Insurance Company. Julie and Maxine claimed that Mr. Trecaso negligently operated his truck, causing their injuries. After Mr. Trecaso and his business were dismissed from the case due to lack of service, Star Insurance remained as defendant. The case proceeded to a jury trial where the key dispute was whether Mr. Trecaso’s actions caused the accident, as described by conflicting accounts from Julie, Maxine, Mr. Trecaso (via deposition), and a police officer.The Providence County Superior Court admitted contested evidence, including Mr. Trecaso’s deposition and a police report, over plaintiffs’ objections. During trial, the jury heard testimony from the plaintiffs, Mr. Trecaso’s deposition, and Trooper Hanley, who investigated the accident. The jury found that neither Julie nor Maxine proved by a preponderance of evidence that Star Insurance’s insured was negligent. Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was denied by the Superior Court, as was Star’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed several alleged errors, including evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, statements by defense counsel, and the verdict sheet. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard to evidentiary and procedural rulings and found no error by the trial justice. The Court concluded that the jury instructions were proper, the verdict sheet was not misleading, and the empty chair doctrine was not violated. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and the judgment in favor of Star Insurance Company, declining to address the defendant’s cross-appeal. View "DeOliveira v. Trecaso" on Justia Law

This case centers on a car accident between an insured driver, Ortiz, and an uninsured motorist, Camacho, in Colorado. At the time of the collision, Camacho lacked insurance, drove with only a learner’s permit, and was unsupervised. Ortiz, insured by Progressive Direct Insurance Company, sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive after the accident. Progressive denied the claim, asserting Ortiz was more than 50% at fault. Ortiz then sued both Camacho for negligence and Progressive for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial of benefits.Camacho did not respond to the lawsuit, leading the District Court for Garfield County to enter a clerk’s default against her. Progressive had been served but did not object at that time. Progressive’s answer to Ortiz’s complaint included general affirmative defenses but did not specifically assert comparative fault. After Ortiz moved for partial summary judgment, Progressive, for the first time, sought to participate in the liability and damages components of the default judgment hearing. The district court permitted Progressive to contest damages but barred it from contesting liability, finding Progressive had not timely or specifically pleaded its legitimate defenses as required under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brekke, 105 P.3d 177 (Colo. 2004). Progressive paid the damages awarded in the default judgment and then proceeded to trial on Ortiz’s bad faith claims, where Ortiz prevailed.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding Progressive failed to meet the Brekke standards for timely and particularized pleading of its legitimate defenses. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether Brekke’s requirements should be reconsidered. The Court clarified that pleading with particularity under Rule 9(b) is only necessary if fraud or mistake is asserted, and otherwise, insurers must plead legitimate defenses specifically and as soon as practicable. The Court affirmed the appellate judgment, reaffirming Brekke and declining to overrule it. View "Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

Carissa Daniels filed a complaint in August 2023 alleging that Patrick R. O’Brien committed timber trespass on her property by cutting trees and bushes. O’Brien’s homeowner’s insurer, MMG Insurance Co., initially defended him under a reservation of rights but later withdrew that reservation and settled the claim with Daniels. Daniels then moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice as part of the settlement. O’Brien objected to both the settlement and the dismissal, arguing he should have the opportunity to defend against Daniels’s claim and thereby preserve a potential wrongful use of civil process claim against her.The Superior Court (Oxford County) held a hearing on the motions. During the hearing, MMG moved to intervene to support Daniels’s dismissal, while O’Brien moved to keep the matter on the court’s docket. The court granted Daniels’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in February 2025 and denied O’Brien’s motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. O’Brien then appealed, raising procedural objections and challenging MMG’s authority to settle over his objection.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the Superior Court in granting the dismissal with prejudice. The Court explained that under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), whether to allow a voluntary dismissal is within the trial court’s discretion and does not require a hearing unless evidence is taken. The Court further held that there was no procedural error, and that the merits of the settlement and MMG’s authority to settle were not at issue in this proceeding. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. The main holding is that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, even over a defendant’s objection based on potential future claims. View "Daniels v. O'Brien" on Justia Law