Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Tile Shop Holdings settled multiple lawsuits with its shareholders and then sought indemnification under its directors-and-officers insurance policies. Allied World, Tile Shop's excess insurer, denied coverage.The Eighth Circuit held that Allied is neither liable for the losses from the prior acts it has excluded in its own policy nor those excluded under the primary policy. Under the first prior-acts exclusion, Tile Shop's wrongful acts started well before August 20, 2012, the policy's retroactive date, which made any losses from them excludable under the relation-back clause. View "Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World National Assurance Co." on Justia Law

After Federal issued a Financial Institution Bond to COR, COR paid $2,080,000 to settle claims by investors that a former COR registered representative had conspired with others to defraud investors by carrying out a "pump-and-dump" scheme in a risky penny-stock called VGTel. COR then filed a claim with its liability insurer for VGTel and other settlement payments, which it later settled for $3,625,000 above the policy's deductible. COR also filed a claim under Federal's Bond to recover its losses for the VGTel settlements. Federal denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action.The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that Auto Lenders Acceptance Corp. v. Gentilini Ford, Inc., 854 A.2d 378 (N.J. 2004), stands for the proposition that, under New Jersey law, COR's payments to settle third-party liability claims based on an employee's dishonest acts directed at the third parties were not a direct loss under Insuring Clause 1.B of the Bond. Furthermore, the district court did not err in dismissing COR's Clause 1.D counterclaim because COR failed to show that admissible evidence would be available at trial to prove that the employee personally committed a covered dishonest act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Federal Insurance Co. v. Axos Clearing LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for an insurance agent on Plaintiffs' claim that the insurance agent negligently failed to procure excess uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with Plaintiffs' instructions, holding that Tenn. Code Ann. 56-7-135(b) applies to create a rebuttable presumption in actions against an insurance agent for negligent failure to procure an insurance policy as directed.In granting summary judgment for the insurance agent, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to rebut the statutory presumption that they had accepted the provided coverage, which did not include excess uninsured motorist coverage. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the rebuttable presumption in section 56-7-135(b) does not apply to actions against an insurance agent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the rebuttable presumption articulated in section 56-7-135(b) applies to actions against an insurance agent by insureds under the insurance policy for negligent failure to procure an insurance policy as directed; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to rebut the statutory presumption in this case. View "Parveen v. ACG South Insurance Agency, LLC" on Justia Law

The jury in this case was presented with two options: find the tractor driver 100 percent liable for the motorcycle riders’ injuries or not liable at all. Neither party requested a comparative-negligence instruction. And none was given. The jury found the tractor driver liable, but only awarded the motorcycle riders a fraction of their uncontested damages. Both parties filed posttrial motions: the motorcycle riders sought more damages; the tractor driver requested a new trial. The trial court granted a new trial, agreeing with the tractor driver that the jury had rendered a “compromise verdict.” At the second trial, the jury found in favor of the tractor driver. The motorcycle riders appealed, arguing the trial court erred by granting a new trial following the first verdict. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the record supported the trial judge’s finding the jury had reached a compromise verdict in the first trial. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Richards v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Kent backed up a grain truck that was owned by his father, Sheldon, to an auger that was being used to move grain to a transport truck. A tractor powered the auger by means of a power take-off shaft. Kent, attempting to open the truck’s gate, wanted to get extra leverage and stepped onto the auger. The auger’s protective shield had been removed. Kent’s foot was exposed to the turning shaft. In the ensuing accident, Kent lost his leg below the knee. Kent settled a negligence action against Sheldon and received $1.9 million from insurers.Kent reserved his right to pursue additional coverage under the auto policy that covered the truck. State Farm sought a declaratory judgment that no coverage was provided because an auger is neither a “car” nor a “trailer,” as defined in the policy but fell under the policy’s “mechanical device” exclusion for damages resulting from "THE MOVEMENT OF PROPERTY BY MEANS OF A MECHANICAL DEVICE, OTHER THAN A HAND TRUCK, THAT IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE VEHICLE.” The circuit court granted State Farm summary judgment. The appellate court construed the exclusion against State Farm.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The exclusion was not ambiguous. The auger is a machine or tool designed to move grain from one place to another and is a device that was “operated by a machine or tool” (a tractor) that is not a small hand-propelled truck or wheelbarrow, and was not attached to the insured vehicle. Exclusions are permissible if they do not differentiate between named insureds and permissive users. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that an insurer's payments on a fire insurance policy were not immune from garnishment as "proceeds of the sale or disposition" of property held in trust under former Va. Code 55.20.2(C) and that the contractual right under the insurance policy to receive fire loss payments was not intangible personal property held by the named insured and his wife as a tenancy by the entirety.Terry and Cathy Phillips owned their residence as tenants by the entirety until they retitled the property in the names of separate, revocable trusts as tenants in common. The residence was later damaged by fire. The residence was covered by an insurance policy issued by Chubb & Son, Inc. that named Terry Phillips as the policyholder. Andrea Jones sought satisfaction of a civil judgment she had obtained against Terry by filing this action to garnish insurance payments from Chubb arising out of the fire damage owned by the reciprocal trusts. The Phillipses sought to quash the garnishment, arguing that the insurance payments were immune from garnishment under section 55.1-136(C). The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in holding that section 55.1-136(C) immunized the insurance payments from garnishment. View "Jones v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming Supreme Court's conclusion that an excess insurer did not have an obligation to pay interest on an underlying personal injury judgment after the primary policy was voided.Plaintiff was injured at a construction site and sued the general contractor, which maintained an excess liability insurance policy with Defendant. Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff. Plaintiff then commenced this action asserting that Defendant was obligated to pay the entire underlying damages award. Supreme Court ultimate determined that Defendant was obligated to pay $1.3 million in excess damages, prejudgment interest on those damages and interest that accrued from the date partial summary judgment was granted to Plaintiff until the entry of judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant was obligated to pay interest on the underlying personal injury judgment after the primary policy was voided. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the excess policy did not provide overlapping coverage for certain interest payments covered in the primary policy. View "Chen v. Insurance Co. of State of PA" on Justia Law

The Church experienced water damage 57 days after escrow closed on a residence it had purchased; its insurance broker, SBC, had procured commercial property insurance for the residence with Philadelphia Indemnity. Philadelphia denied a claim. The policy states the insurer will not pay for losses if the building where the loss occurs was vacant for more than 60 consecutive days before the loss. The parties entered into an agreement whereby the Church gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in the Church's name against SBC or third parties in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the residence; the loan was to be repaid out of any recovery.In a suit against SBC for professional negligence, the court found that SBC had breached its duty of care, but that the Church suffered no damages because the loss was covered under the Philadelphia policy. The court found the vacancy provision ambiguous and concluded that it did not include time before the insured owned the residence.The court of appeal reversed. When the vacancy provision is properly interpreted and applied to the undisputed evidence, there was no coverage for the loss. The residence did not contain enough personal property to conduct operations as a residence for the Coptic Pope and visiting clergy or the prior owner. The court rejected an argument that the residence was not vacant under the policy because it was being held out for sale. View "St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBC Insurance Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified to the Arizona Supreme Court the following questions: 1. In a garnishment action by a judgment creditor against the judgment debtor's insurer claiming that coverage is owed under an insurance policy, where the judgment creditor is not proceeding on an assignment of rights, can the insurer invoke the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel to bind the judgment creditor to the terms of the insurance contract? 2. If yes, does direct benefits estoppel also bind the judgment creditor to the arbitration clause contained in the insurance policy? View "Benson v. Casa de Capri Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question by concluding that, under Hawai'i law, a permissive user of an insured vehicle, whose connection to the vehicle is permission to use the vehicle to run errands and drive to work, was entitled to uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the chain-of-events test because he was injured by an uninsured motorist.The Supreme Court determined that the proper inquiry under the chain of events test was whether a permissive user has retained a sufficient connection to the insured vehicle. The Court then held that, under the chain of events test, the driver at issue was entitled to UM benefits because he was a permissive user of the insured vehicle during the chain of events resulting in his injury caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mizuno" on Justia Law