Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Keizer Trailer Sales, Inc., which was insured by Continental Western Insurance Company (CWIC), sold three trailers to James Black. The installment purchase agreement stated that Keizer would remain the owner of the trailers under the purchase price was paid in full. Black was subsequently involved in an accident while pulling a Keizer trailer that resulted in one fatality and multiple injuries. Wrongful death and negligence claims were filed against Black and his business. CWIC filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the commercial and umbrella policies it issued to Keizer on the trailer involved in the accident did not provide coverage for the claims arising from Black’s accident. The district court ruled against CWIC, concluding that Black was insured under the policies’ omnibus clauses because he was driving a vehicle owned by Keizer with Keizer’s permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Keizer retained ownership of the trailers, and because Black’s use of the trailers was with Keizer’s permission, coverage was available under the omnibus clauses of Keizer’s CWIC policies. View "Continental W. Ins. Co. v. James Black, JJ Bugs, Ltd." on Justia Law

Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. was a defendant in a lawsuit that alleged, in part, that Pacific Trades was liable for damages for construction defects caused by Pacific Trades's negligent acts or omissions. Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy Number A15274001 (Underwriters) undertook Pacific Trades's defense in that action under its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy insuring Pacific Trades. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, which also insured Pacific Trades, declined to participate in funding Pacific Trades's defense, claiming (among other things) that a clause in its policy relieved ProBuilders of any duty to defend Pacific Trades when another insurer was doing so. Underwriters sought equitable contribution from ProBuilders for a portion of the defense costs. The parties filed cross-motions seeking summary adjudication of ProBuilders's liability for a portion of the defense costs. The trial court agreed with ProBuilders that a clause in its policy relieved it of any duty to defend Pacific Trades when (as here) another insurer was defending Pacific Trades, and entered summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders. Underwriters appealed that determination. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in enforcing the clause in ProBuilders's policy and, because the other arguments raised by ProBuilders in support of its summary judgment motion on Underwriters's claim for equitable contribution did not support the judgment, the Court reversed the judgment. View "Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Morady sold life insurance policies. Davis, a former lawyer, approached elderly African-Americans and paid them small amounts to become the nominal applicant-buyers of the policies, with Morady as the insurance agent, and to put the policies into an irrevocable trust, with Davis as trustee. The beneficial interest in the trust would be sold to an investor who would pay the remaining premiums and wait for the death of the insured. The insurer would not have sold the policies had it known that the premiums would be paid by an unrelated third party in the expectation that the policy would be transferred to him; its contracts with agents, including Morady, required them to conform to an “absolute prohibition against participation in any type of premium financing scheme involving an unrelated third party,” but the law allows an investor to purchase the beneficial interest in an existing life insurance policy. The net loss to Ohio National (beyond $120,000 commissions paid to Morady) was $605,000 in litigation expenses to void the policies. The total death benefits specified in the illegal policies amounted to $2.8 million. The Seventh Circuit agreed that Morady’s conduct constituted fraud and a breach of her contract and affirmed summary judgment, with damages of $726,000. View "Ohio Nat'l Life Assurance Corp. v. Davis" on Justia Law

In 2001, Furnival and its insurer agreed to a Pollution and Remediation Legal Liability Policy, detailing $10 million in liability protection; a 10-year coverage period; and insurance coverage for 12 Furnival locations, including the Elizabethtown Landfill Site, which Furnival was obligated to clean up under a consent decree with the federal government. Insurer knew about the consent decree when the Policy issued. The Policy Endorsements list five reasons for which insurer may “refuse to offer a renewal extension of coverage,” and states that insurer “shall not cancel nor non-renew this Policy except for the reasons stated above.” None of the listed reasons for non-renewal occurred. In 2006, the parties increased the Policy’s limit to $14 million. After the term expired, insurer sent Furnival’s insurance broker its version of a renewal offer, providing $5 million of coverage over a one-year term, omitting coverage for Elizabethtown, the only previously insured site for which Furnival had made a claim, refusing to renew the same terms. The Third Circuit vacated a ruling in favor of insurer, holding that, for a contract to be considered a renewal, it must contain the same, or nearly the same, terms as the original contract. View "Indian Harbor Ins. Co v. F&M Equip., Ltd" on Justia Law

A certified question of Oregon law was certified to the Oregon Supreme Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question arose out of a construction contract dispute in which a homeowner's association sued a builder in state court for construction defects. The homeowner's association and the builder settled, and the settlement included an unconditional release and covenant not to execute against the builder. When the homeowner's association attempted to garnish the builder's liability insurance policy, however, the insurer claimed that it had no liability because the settlement unconditionally released its insured from any liability. The state trial court agreed, and the builder appealed. Meanwhile, in response to the state trial court's conclusion that the settlement agreement eliminated the insurer's liability, the homeowner's association and the builder amended their settlement agreement to eliminate the unconditional release and covenant not to execute. Pursuant to the new agreement, the builder initiated this action in federal court against its insurer. In the federal court action, the insurer argued that the state court already had determined that, given the terms of the original settlement, the builder could not recover under its insurance policy and that the parties lacked authority to create any new insurance coverage obligation by amending their settlement agreement. The federal district court agreed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified a question on whether the homeowner's association and the builder could amend their settlement agreement in such a way as to revive the liability of the builder's insurer. After review, the Oregon Court concluded that, although the parties possessed authority to amend the terms of their settlement agreement, they could not do so in a way that retroactively revived the liability that was eliminated in their original agreement (at least not on the basis of the legal theories that they proposed). View "A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Witasick was covered by a disability policy and a business overhead expense policy. His claims against both policies were honored. A dispute arose concerning coverage of some claimed business expenses. After years of negotiation, the parties settled: the insurer agreed to pay more than $4 million and Witasick agreed to release known, unknown, and future claims. The settlement contained a covenant not to sue, based on “any conduct prior to the date the Parties sign this document, or which is related to, or arises out of” the policies. During negotiations, the U.S. Government notified Witasick that he was the target of a grand jury investigation related to fraud and business expense claims on his income tax returns. Witasick was indicted in 2007. To support its charge of mail fraud, the government relied on information and documents Witasick had submitted to the insurer. An employee of the insurer testified before the Grand Jury and at Witasick’s trial. Witasick was convicted on most counts, but acquitted of mail fraud, and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. In 2011, Witasick sued the insurer based on the policies and cooperation with the prosecution. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding the claims prohibited by the settlement agreement. View "Witasick v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins, Co." on Justia Law

Brown filed a class action complaint, alleging that she contacted Defender by telephone in response to its advertisement for a home security system; that, during several calls, she provided Defender with personal information; and that Defender recorded those calls without her permission and without notifying her of the recording. Brown claimed violations of California Penal Code 632, which prohibits the recording of confidential telephone communications without the consent of all parties. Defender owned a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by First Mercury, covering “personal injury” and “advertising injury.” In a separate definitions section, the policy defined both “advertising injuries” and “personal injuries” as those “arising out of … [o]ral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” The parties eventually reached a settlement. Defender provided First Mercury with timely notice of the Brown suit. First Mercury denied coverage and refused to defend. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Defender’s suit against First Mercury. Defender’s Policy requires “publication,” which was neither alleged nor proven. View "Defender Sec. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited appealed a declaratory judgment entered in favor of Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation ("AMIC") in this dispute between Sentinel and AMIC over which insurance company was responsible for providing primary insurance coverage in an underlying automobile-accident case. After reviewing the AMIC policy and the Sentinel policy, the Supreme Court concluded that the language in each was unambiguous as to which provided primary coverage: the AMIC policy provided primary coverage, and the Sentinel policy provided excess coverage. The Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that the Sentinel policy provided primary coverage. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

Stephen Hansen was injured when Brad Aguilar struck Hansen’s vehicle. Hansen sued Aguilar, who was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. State Farm agreed to defend Aguilar under a reservation of rights. Aguilar agreed to a settlement with Hansen in which he assigned his rights against State Farm to Hansen. Hansen filed this action in federal district court alleging, among other claims, that State Farm breached a contract in its representation of Aguilar. The federal district court concluded that State Farm breached its contractual duty to defend Aguilar because it did not provide Aguilar with independent counsel of his choosing. State Farm moved for reconsideration. The federal district court granted the motion in part and certified two questions to the Supreme Court concerning Nevada’s conflict-of-interest rules in insurance litigation. The Supreme Court answered (1) Nevada law requires an insurer to provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest exists between the insurer and its insured; and (2) an insurer is only obligated to provide independent counsel when an actual of conflict exists, and a reservation of rights letter does not create a per se conflict of interest. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen" on Justia Law

In 2006, fire destroyed Calvin’s home. His insurer paid the claim, but indicated that it would not reinsure him. Calvin rebuilt on the same land and applied for a policy through the Mackey Agency. Calvin answered questions posed to him by Eleen Mackey, an employee, who entered the information into a computer. Asked if he had a fire loss within the previous three years, Calvin stated that he had a fire at the same location. Mackey printed the application. Calvin signed without reading it. The “No” box next to the question about prior fire loss was marked, but the blank within the question was not filled in. The space for Calvin's initials is also blank. Metropolitan issued a homeowner’s policy in 2007. Calvin paid the premiums regularly. In 2011, Calvin’s rebuilt home was destroyed by fire while the family was on vacation. Metropolitan’s investigation was inconclusive; no cause could be determined. Metropolitan denied Calvin’s claim and sought a declaratory judgment to void the policy, based on material misrepresentations in the application and the claims process, claiming that Calvin caused the fire to be set. Calvin counterclaimed breach of contract, slander, outrage, and bad faith. The district court determined that Calvin misrepresented his prior loss and that there was no evidence that Metropolitan acted in a dishonest, malicious, or oppressive manner. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to misrepresentation in the application and breach of contract, but affirmed with respect to bad faith and on Metropolitan’s defense of arson claim. Metropolitan can seek rescission of the contract. View "Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin" on Justia Law