Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Arizona's Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Act (UMA) requires all insurers writing motor vehicle liability policies to also offer underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage that covers all persons insured under the policy. Any exceptions to UIM coverage not permitted by the UMA are void. Insurer in this case sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied Insured's UIM claim. Insured was injured while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, the named insured on a separate motorcycle policy issued also by Insurer. The Supreme Court held (1) the UMA required Insurer to provide UIM coverage for Insured under the auto policy, where Insured's total damages exceeded the amount of her tort recovery from her husband under the husband's motorcycle policy; and (2) the UMA did not permit Insurer to refuse to provide Insured with UIM coverage under her auto policy because she was partially indemnified as a claimant under the liability coverage of the separate motorcycle policy issued by Insured to her husband, whose negligence contributed to her injuries. View "Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharp" on Justia Law

After an attorney filed a settlement offer under Rule 68, opposing counsel accepted the offer. Before either attorney filed the offer and acceptance with the Superior Court, the accepting attorney realized he had made a mistake, and revoked his acceptance. The attorney who had extended the offer responded to his revocation by filing the written acceptance, thereby securing a final judgment in the form of the settlement order by means of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 68’s instruction to the Prothonotary. The attorney did not mention that the written acceptance had been revoked before it was filed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court judge’s order denying the Motion to Vacate the Judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ceccola v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Two personal injury actions and one wrongful death action arising out of an automobile accident were consolidated on appeal before the Supreme Court. In 2007, Paul -Smith's vehicle collided with a semi-tractor trailer driven by Robert Petrovich. Nicole Plouffe and Tiffany Ann Marie Fragnella were both passengers in Smith's vehicle. Plouffe was severely injured and Fragnella died as a result of her injuries. At the time of the accident, Petrovich was driving the semi-truck for Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and was training a Swift Transportation employee in driving skills. The Swift Transportation trainee, Thomas Thayer, was a passenger in the semi-truck at the time of the collision. Thayer was covered under Swift Transportation's workers' compensation insurance. Smith and his passengers' Amended Complaint alleged that Petrovich was negligently driving the semi-truck. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Petrovich and Swift, finding that there was no evidence that the accident was caused by Petrovich. The district court also concluded that a third party claim for negligence against Petrovich was separately barred by the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho's Workers' Compensation statutes. Smith appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, that the court abused its discretion in denying the Motions for Reconsideration, and that the court erred in determining that the exclusive remedy rule barred the third-party claims against Petrovich. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Petrovich, and found no error in the district court's decision. View "Fragnella v. Petrovich" on Justia Law

The issue in this case arose from a judgment which held that a "Designated Project or Premises" endorsement of a commercial general liability insurance policy purchased by a sporting goods store excluded coverage for a claim arising out of the sale of improperly reloaded ammunition. Petitioner Tom Erekson purchased a used .500 revolver from a sporting goods store, along with three boxes of handloaded ammunition, all of which the store purchased from the gun's previous owner. Erekson and his sons took the revolver to a shooting range, loaded five chambers with the reloaded ammunition, and fired. The one cartridge discharged, but two others detonated simultaneously. When the cartridge under the loading gate detonated, it sheared off the gate, a portion of the cartridge rocketed rearward, and struck Erekson in the forehead, lodging three inches into his brain. He also lost a portion of his thumb. The store held a general liability policy through Markel International Insurance Company. The store brought suit for a court order to declare Erekson's injuries were covered under the policy. The district court held that the injury was excluded; Erekson unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. Upon review of the policy, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding coverage was excluded under the endorsement. View "Markel International Ins. Co. v. Erekson" on Justia Law

Patrick McGinness, driving a vehicle owned by his adult daughter, negligently struck and injured Marie DeMeo. DeMeo obtained a $350,000 state-court judgment against McGinness. McGinness's daughter's insurer, American Family Insurance Company, paid its $100,000 policy limit under an owner's liability policy that covered McGinness as a permitted driver. State Farm insured McGinness under four liability policies issued for the cars he owed. Each policy provided coverage to McGinness when operating a non-owned vehicle such as his daughter's. Invoking the policies' "anti-stacking" provisions, State Farm paid the per-person limit of one policy, $50,000. De Meo filed this action to recover an additional $150,000, the combined limits of the other three policies. The district court held that the anti-stacking provisions did not conflict with Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (MVFRL) requirements, which mandate that motor vehicle owners and operates maintain minimum levels of financial responsibility for damages arising out of their ownership or use of a motor vehicle, and granted summary judgment in State Farm's favor. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the MVFRL demands stacking when there are multiple policies. View "DeMeo v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. (Farm Bureau) brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Henry Kennedy was entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for an accident. The trial court found Kennedy was entitled to UIM coverage under the terms of the policy because Kennedy was "upon" and thus "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted Kennedy's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision. Initially, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's finding of actual physical contact was supported by the evidence. The trial court found Kennedy had left the engine running on his employer's vehicle; that he was in physical contact with the covered vehicle (with his hand on the truck) when the other vehicle careened towards him, forcing him to relinquish his contact in order to attempt to avoid injury; that Kennedy was "upon" and "occupying" the vehicle at the time of the accident; and he was entitled to UIM coverage under the Farm Bureau policy. Moreover, a second, resultant physical contact was established when Kennedy was pinned against the insured vehicle. The Supreme Court concluded that a requirement that an insured remain in physical contact with the insured vehicle in the face of imminent danger was unreasonable and unconscionable. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "SC Farm Bureau v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Richard Ford suffered a work-related injury to his neck. He was diagnosed with a cervical strain, and Sentry Casualty Company accepted liability and paid benefits for this injury. During Ford’s treatment, he underwent an MRI which revealed a more serious cervical disc condition. Ford claimed that the workplace accident caused or aggravated this condition and that Sentry was liable for surgery to address it. Ford also claimed that Sentry was liable for ongoing temporary total disability benefits and that Sentry had unreasonably adjusted his claim. Sentry denied liability for Ford’s cervical disc condition based on the opinions of several doctors that the condition was not related to the industrial accident. Sentry also maintained that Ford reached maximum medical improvement, that he has been released to return to work without restrictions, and that it reasonably adjusted his claim. The dispute ultimately reached the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC). Trial was held in early 2011. Ford and his wife testified, and numerous medical records were admitted into evidence. The WCC ruled in favor of Sentry as to each of the foregoing issues, and Ford appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the WCC correctly determined that he failed to carry his burden of establishing causation with regard to his disc condition and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Ford v. Sentry Casualty Co." on Justia Law

A healthcare worker was sprayed in the eye with fluids from an HIV-positive patient. She received preventive treatment and counseling. Her employer initially paid workers' compensation benefits; it later filed a controversion based on its doctor's opinion that the employee was able to return to work. The employee asked for more benefits, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim. The employee appealed, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Runstrom v. Alaska Native Medical Center" on Justia Law

Budrik sued Wegman for injuries sustained in an accident on a construction site managed by Wegman and was demanding almost presented a realistic possibility of a potential loss above the policy limit, $1 million), but failed to warn Wegman of this possibility. Wegman sued Admiral for failure to act in good faith, alleging that it would promptly have sought indemnity from its excess insurer, AIG (policy limit $10 million). Budrik filed suit four years before Wegman notified AIG, which denied coverage for failure to timely notify. Budrik obtained a judgment of slightly more than $2 million. The district court dismissed Wegman’s suit against Admiral, and, on remand, granted a stay, pending state court resolution of Wegman’s suit against AIG. The Seventh Circuit dismissed appeal of the stay. Although Wegman’s suit against Admiral in federal court and against AIG in state court, are related, they do not satisfy the conditions for abstention.; the district court is not finished with the case. The stay really is a stay, and not a dismissal. View "R.C. Wegman Constr. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in a car accident. The other car in the accident was owned by Amanda Salgado, a superintendent of a church (the Church), and driven by Michael Meyer, a member of the Church. The accident occurred while Meyer and other Church members were taking a lunch break from cleaning and repairing Church property. Appellant sued the Church, Salgado, and Meyer in state court. The Church's insurer (Insurer) then sought a declaratory judgment in federal court resolving whether its insurance policy covered Appellant's accident. The district court held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court (1) erroneously held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado, (2) improperly adjudicated the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify, and (3) improperly asserted jurisdiction over Appellant's state-law claims. Additionally, the Court held (1) Insurer had a duty to defend the Church and Salgado in Appellant's underlying state lawsuit, and (2) the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify could not be adjudicated until after Appellant's claims are decided in state court. View "GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ" on Justia Law