Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i, the issue was whether a subrogee insurance company, which timely intervened pursuant to HRS § 386-8(b), has an independent right to continue to pursue claims and/or legal theories against a tortfeasor that were not asserted by the subrogor employee, after summary judgment has been granted against the subrogor employee, on the subrogor employee’s claims. This case involved Hyun Ju Park, a bartender who was shot by an off-duty Honolulu Police Department officer while at work. Park sued the City and County of Honolulu, alleging negligence and other claims. Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Park's employer, intervened in the case, alleging additional negligence claims that Park had not raised. The City moved to dismiss all of Park’s claims and some of Dongbu's claims, which the court granted, leaving two of Dongbu's claims - negligent supervision and negligent training - remaining. The City then moved for summary judgment against Dongbu, arguing that since Park's claims were dismissed, Dongbu's claims also failed.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that a subrogee insurance company, which timely intervened, does have an independent right to continue to pursue claims and/or legal theories against a tortfeasor that were not asserted by the subrogor employee, even after summary judgment has been granted against the subrogor. The court reasoned that an affirmative answer protects subrogation, aligns with Hawai‘i’s workers’ compensation subrogation law, and does not undermine employers’ and insurers’ intervention rights. The court also rejected the City's claim preclusion argument, stating that Dongbu's remaining claims for negligent supervision and negligent training had not yet been decided and were not barred by res judicata. Therefore, Dongbu may continue to pursue its non-dismissed claims. View "Park v. City and County of Honolulu" on Justia Law

The case in question arose from a multi-million-dollar loss suffered by Westlake Chemical Corporation and Axiall Corporation (the respondents) at their chlorine manufacturing plant in Natrium, West Virginia. The loss occurred when 90 tons of liquid chlorine leaked from a rupture in a railroad tanker car that had been recently repaired by third-party contractors. The liquid chlorine vaporized into a cloud or plume that caused corrosion damage to the equipment at the plant. The respondents claimed the damage costs from their insurance companies (the petitioners). However, the insurance companies denied coverage based on three exclusions in the insurance policies relating to corrosion, faulty workmanship, and contamination. The case reached the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which was asked to review three orders of the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, Business Court Division. The lower court had granted partial summary judgment to the respondents, finding that none of the three exclusions barred the respondents’ coverage claims. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia concluded that the lower court's orders were not final orders subject to appeal at this stage of the proceedings. This was due to unresolved issues of causation and damages, and because the orders did not conclusively determine the disputed controversy, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, or were effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, without prejudice. View "NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The case involves Susan Harriman and Associated Industries Insurance Company. Harriman was an investment advisor who was sued for defamation by Palmaz Scientific after she shared damaging information about the company with her clients. Harriman sought coverage from Associated, with which her employer had an insurance policy, for her defense against the defamation allegations. Associated, however, denied coverage, arguing that the policy only covered wrongful acts committed in the rendering or failure to render professional services on behalf of the company. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Associated. The court held that Associated was never obligated to defend Harriman because the claims triggered both its policy and a separate policy Harriman had with Travelers Insurance Company, making Travelers the primary coverage provider. The court also held that Harriman failed to present evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that Associated lacked a reasonable basis for its coverage decision, thereby dismissing her bad faith claim. View "Harriman v. Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the requirement for a witness affidavit under subsection 38-77-170(2) of the South Carolina Code should be considered a condition precedent to filing a "John Doe" civil action. The case arose from a car accident where the plaintiff, Peter Rice, filed a lawsuit against an unidentified driver, referred to as "John Doe." Rice alleged that Doe's vehicle crossed into his friend's lane, causing his friend to swerve and hit a tree. Under South Carolina law, it's possible to recover damages under an uninsured motorist policy for accidents caused by unidentified drivers. However, the law requires that the accident must have been witnessed by someone other than the owner or operator of the insured vehicle and that the witness must sign an affidavit attesting to the truth of the facts of the accident. Doe moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Rice had failed to comply with the requirement for a witness affidavit at the time of filing his complaint. The lower court initially denied Doe's motion, but later another judge ruled that the affidavit was a condition precedent to the right to bring an action and dismissed the case. The court of appeals reversed this decision, finding that the second judge did not have the authority to overrule the first judge's decision. On review, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that compliance with the witness affidavit requirement is not a condition precedent to filing a "John Doe" civil action. Rather, the court found that the witness affidavit may be produced after the commencement of the lawsuit. However, the court noted that the affidavit should be produced promptly upon request and if it is not, the action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, albeit on different grounds, and remanded the case for trial. View "Rice v. Doe" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, William Loomis, a truck driver who was injured in a car accident in New York, sought recovery from his employer's insurance company, ACE American Insurance Company, for his remaining damages after the underinsured driver's insurer paid out their policy limit. Loomis claimed that ACE failed to comply with both New York and Indiana laws requiring an insurer to provide underinsured motorist coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had to determine whether New York's laws requiring insurers to offer optional supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage could make an insurer liable when it fails to offer this coverage, and whether Indiana law requires an insurer to provide underinsured motorist coverage when the insured suffers damages in excess of the tortfeasor’s policy limit and has no other underinsured motorist coverage to cover damages up to a certain limit.The court concluded that under New York law, Loomis was not entitled to relief. While insurers are required to offer supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in New York, this coverage is optional. Even if ACE violated New York law by failing to offer this coverage, Loomis's claim seeking to reform the insurance contract to include this coverage was not supported by New York law. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment on this claim.In terms of the claim under Indiana law, the court could not confidently predict how the Indiana Supreme Court would interpret the relevant statute, and therefore, certified questions to the Indiana Supreme Court. View "Loomis v. ACE American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In this case before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, a consortium of over 130 institutions of higher education sued a group of 16 insurance carriers for denying their COVID-19 related claims. The insurance carriers had issued identical “all risk” property insurance policies to the institutions via the Educational & Institutional Insurance Administrators Inc. (EIIA). The colleges, including three in Washington, filed the suit in Pierce County Superior Court, Washington, seeking a declaratory judgment that their COVID-19 related losses were covered under the insurance policies. However, two of the defendant insurers filed a similar suit in Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment that the losses were not covered by the policies.The insurers argued that the Washington court should dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens, asserting that Illinois was a more convenient forum due to the geographical distribution of the colleges. They also argued that the Illinois action should be allowed to proceed. The colleges, on the other hand, argued that the insurance policies' "suit against the company" clause allowed them to choose the forum and prohibited the insurers from seeking to alter that choice.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the lower court's decision, denying the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds and issuing an injunction against further proceedings in the Illinois action. The court held that the insurers had contractually agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of any court chosen by the insured and could not seek to transfer, change venue, or remove any lawsuit filed by the insured in such a court. The court also found that an injunction was appropriate under the circumstances to protect the colleges' contractual rights and prevent a manifest wrong and injustice. View "Pacific Lutheran Univ. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London" on Justia Law

After being involved in a car accident, Kenan Watkins filed a diminished value claim with his insurer, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Allstate"), which was denied. Watkins then filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that the denial of his claim violated Mississippi law. However, the district court ruled in favor of Allstate, holding that Allstate's policy did not violate Mississippi law and that Watkins failed to state a plausible claim, which led to Watkins' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.In the background of the case, Watkins had an insurance policy with Allstate for his 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe. After the accident, Watkins' vehicle sustained substantial damages, and Watkins alleged that his car sustained an additional diminished value. Allstate denied Watkins' diminished value claim, relying upon a provision in its policy that excludes any decrease in the property's value resulting from the loss and/or repair or replacement. Watkins did not dispute this policy exclusion, but argued that Allstate's exclusion provision violates the Mississippi Uninsured Motorist Statute. Allstate moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Watkins did not plausibly allege that the other driver's vehicle was an "uninsured motor vehicle" under Mississippi law, and that even if it was, Allstate's provision excluding diminished value is valid under Mississippi law.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Watkins failed to make a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) due to insufficient factual content in the complaint. The court also held that Allstate’s diminished value exclusion is valid under Mississippi law and does not violate public policy. The court reasoned that Watkins had not pointed to any legislative or judicial pronouncement requiring that diminished value be a part of all automobile insurance policies. Therefore, in this instance, the plain meaning of Allstate’s policy controlled, and Allstate’s diminished value exclusion was upheld as valid under Mississippi law. View "Watkins v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an accident occurred at a construction site which resulted in bodily injuries to Gaylon Cruse and Mark Duckworth. During the installation of roof trusses, a power crane operated by Douglas Forrest was prematurely released, causing a truss to fall and collapse onto other trusses, injuring Cruse and Duckworth. Southern Truss, the owner of the truck to which the crane was attached, had two insurance policies - a commercial auto policy from Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company (Artisan) and a commercial general liability policy from The Burlington Insurance Company (Burlington). Both insurance companies denied a duty to defend in the underlying lawsuit initiated by Cruse and Duckworth.Artisan filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend under its auto policy due to an operations exclusion clause and that Burlington owed a duty to defend. The district court denied both companies' motions for judgment, finding an ambiguity in Artisan's policy that should be construed in favor of the insured and that Burlington had a duty to defend some claims not covered by Artisan's policy. Both Artisan and Burlington appealed.The appeals court, applying Illinois law and conducting a de novo review, found no ambiguity in Artisan's policy. The court concluded that the operations exclusion applied because the injuries arose from the operation of the crane attached to the truck, whose primary purpose was to provide mobility to the crane. As such, Artisan had no duty to defend. Since Artisan had no duty to defend, the court determined that Burlington did have a duty to defend under its policy. Thus, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court. View "Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. Burlington Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In a workers' compensation case, an employee was injured and sought compensation from her employer and its insurance carrier. The employee failed to provide her expert witness's evidence in a timely manner, serving them only two weeks before the arbitration hearing began. The employer and its insurance carrier objected, arguing that this late submission of evidence was unfairly prejudicial. The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner agreed with the employer and excluded the evidence. This decision was affirmed by the commissioner, but was later reversed on judicial review by the district court. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. However, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the commissioner’s decision to exclude untimely evidence was entitled to deference. The court found that the commissioner did not abuse his discretion by excluding the untimely evidence since the employee had disregarded multiple deadlines and submitted the reports only about two weeks before the hearing. Moreover, the reports were not from the employee’s treating physicians and the vocational report reached a conclusion that no other expert in the case shared. Therefore, the supreme court vacated the court of appeals decision, reversed the district court decision, and remanded the case back to the district court to enter a judgment affirming the commissioner's decision to exclude the untimely evidence. View "Hagen v. Serta/National Bedding Co., LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard an appeal from Ezrasons, Inc., a company engaged in the garment trade, against The Travelers Indemnity Company. Ezrasons suffered a loss of insured goods exceeding $600,000 due to a fire at a warehouse owned by Chamad Warehouse, Inc., in Marion, North Carolina. Travelers paid $250,000, but declined to pay more, asserting that the policy's coverage was limited to $250,000 because the warehouse where the goods were destroyed was not an "Approved Location" under the policy. The district court ruled in favor of Travelers, finding that the warehouse was unambiguously not an "Approved Location" under the policy.On appeal, the Second Circuit Court found that the policy was ambiguous as to whether the warehouse where the destruction occurred was an "Approved Location." It further held that the district court erroneously excluded admissible evidence by which Ezrasons sought to prove that the warehouse was an "Approved Location." As the extrinsic evidence did not provide a basis for favoring either possible meaning of "Approved Location," the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of Ezrasons under New York law. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Ezrasons. View "Ezrasons, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co." on Justia Law