Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Alex Herrgott, was driving a four-seat Polaris all-terrain vehicle at night down a gravel road when he “overcorrected” trying to avoid a pothole. The ATV overturned, and Joseph MacNabb, a passenger, was severely injured. Since MacNabb was a state employee in the course and scope of his employment, he received workers’ compensation benefits from the Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Trust. The Trust later initiated this litigation in an attempt to recover more than $300,000 in benefits paid for MacNabb’s injury. The circuit court ultimately granted summary judgment to Herrgott because the Trust’s Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative could not articulate a legal theory entitling it to recover. The Mississippi Supreme Court found there was sufficient evidence of Herrgott’s negligence for the case to go to trial, and the deposition testimony of a lay witness should not have bound the Trust as to which legal theories it could pursue. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. View "Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Trust v. Herrgott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the opinion of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) conclusion that medical providers did not have to submit their medical billing statements until after a determination of liability, holding that the statute is unambiguous.At issue was whether P&P Construction, Inc. and, by extension, the company's insurer, Kentucky Employers Mutual Insurance (KEMI), was responsible for payment of medical billings statements submitted outside of the forty-five-day period set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.020(4). The ALJ and Board determined that medical providers do not have to submit their billings until after a determination of liability. The court of appeals reversed, holding that medical providers are required to submit their billings within forty-five days of service, regardless of whether a determination of liability has been made, and therefore, employers and their insurance carriers are not responsible for payment of billings submitted after the forty-five day period. The Supreme Court, holding that under the unambiguous language of the statute, medical service providers must submit their billings within forty-five days of treatment, and such requirement applies both pre- and post-award. View "Farley v. P&P Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners Infinity Select Insurance Company and Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation (collectively, Infinity) are named Defendants in a pending action (the instant lawsuit). The instant lawsuit stems from an earlier 2013 case (the prior action) in which plaintiffs sued Infinity’s insured for negligence and wrongful death in connection with a three-vehicle collision (the collision). In August 2022, the court issued its ruling. The primary effect of the ruling was to reform the Infinity policy to provide greater bodily injury policy limits of $750,000. Per its terms, the ruling “establishes the policy limits for the jury’s consideration in the upcoming jury trial on the remaining causes of action” including plaintiffs’ cause of action against Infinity for bad faith breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to Infinity’s rejection of plaintiffs’ Code of Civil Procedure section 998 demand of $750,000. Infinity filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the subject ruling.   The Fifth Appellate District concluded that the trial court erred in reforming the Infinity policy. The court held that the motor carrier of property—not the insurer—bears ultimate responsibility for meeting the requirements necessary to obtain a motor carrier permit. Moreover, even where an insurer intends to issue and certify a policy under section 34631.5, it is not obligated to issue the policy in the full amount of $750,000. Additionally, the court wrote evidence of insurance is not the only means of complying with the MCPPA financial responsibility requirements and infinity was under no duty to determine whether the insured had otherwise complied with MCPPA requirements. View "Infinity Select Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

United provided Patterson's medical insurance under a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1101. Patterson received a summary plan description, an ERISA-mandated synopsis of important plan terms but was not given a plan document with all of a plan’s governing language. The summary said that if a beneficiary recovered from a third party for an insured incident, the plan had a right to reimbursement. Patterson was injured in a traffic accident. United covered his medical expenses and notified Patterson it would invoke the reimbursement right. Patterson sued the other driver in state court and joined the plan, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no reimbursement right. United’s lawyers claimed that no plan document existed. Patterson recovered and settled with the plan for $25,000. Months later, Patterson’s wife suffered injuries in another traffic accident. United paid her medical expenses. Patterson’s wife sued the driver in state court. She obtained a declaratory judgment after the plan's lawyers produced a plan document, stating that it took precedence over the summary and not including a reimbursement right.Patterson then filed a purported class action under ERISA, seeking the return of the $25,000. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. Patterson had standing to sue only on his own behalf but has cognizable claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engagement in prohibited transactions. View "Patterson v. United Healthcare Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Following a shooting at a bar in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, Plaintiff, who was injured as a bystander, obtained a $2.5 million judgment against the bar’s owner and operator, Steven Scaglione. Plaintiff thereafter filed this equitable-garnishment claim against Scaglione and his insurer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (Acceptance). Scaglione filed cross-claims against Acceptance, alleging that it had, in bad faith, failed to defend or indemnify him and breached its fiduciary duty. Acceptance filed motions to dismiss both Plaintiff’s and Scaglione’s claims, which the district court granted based on the applicability of an assault-and-battery exclusion in Scaglione’s policy. In this consolidated appeal, both Plaintiff and Scaglione assert that the district court erred in dismissing their claims. 
 The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court did not suggest that the assault-and-battery exclusion did not apply solely because the purported victim was not the target. Accordingly, the court rejected this argument and concluded that the unambiguous policy language covers claims of injuries sustained by innocent bystanders arising out of an assault and battery. The court thus concluded that the policy exclusion applies. Further, the court concluded that Scaglione’s negligence was not independent and distinct from the excluded assault and battery. The court explained that the concurrent-proximate-cause rule thus does not apply, and, therefore, the exclusion bars coverage under the policy. Without coverage, Plaintiff and Scaglione cannot state a claim. The district court thus did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. View "Steven Scaglione v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins Co" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01 mandates that a single policy insuring multiple vehicles provides different underinsured motorist (UIM) coverages for each vehicle rather than a single UIM coverage that applies to multiple vehicles.Plaintiff's mother died in a car crash caused by a neglectful driver. Plaintiff submitted a UIM to CSAA General Insurance Company, her mother's insurer. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff's mother's CSAA policy covered the mother's two vehicles and provided UIM coverage of $50,000 per person. When CSAA paid only $50,000 Plaintiff sought an additional $50,000 under an "intra-policy stacking" theory. After CSAA rejected the claim, Plaintiff sued for declaratory judgment, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and a class action. CSAA moved to certify two questions. The Supreme Court answered (1) insurers seeking to prevent insureds from stacking UIM coverages under a single, multi-vehicle policy must employ section 20-259.01(H)'s sole prescribed method for limiting stacking; and (2) section 20-259.01(B) does not bar an insured from receiving UIM coverage from the policy in an amount greater than the bodily injury or death liability limits of the policy. View "Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that under California's Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act, Cal. Veh. Code 34600 et seq., a commercial automobile insurance policy does not continue in full force and effect until the insurer cancels a corresponding certificate of insurance on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).Insured was driving a truck covered by his policy with Insurer when he collided with a car, killing its driver. The driver's parents sued Insured for wrongful death, and Insured tendered his defense to Insurer. Insurer settled the claim for its policy limits and then sued Insured's former insurer (Defendant) for declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and equitable subrogation. The trial court held that Defendant's policy remained in effect on the date of the collision because one of Defendant's cancellation notices was rejected by the DMV as incomplete. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered that the Act does not require a commercial auto insurance policy to remain in effective indefinitely until the insurer cancels the certificate of insurance on file with the DMV. View "Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting a summary judgment motion filed by Petitioners and two insurers, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively, Insurers), and denying Respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that the district court did not err by finding that Insurers had no duty to defend Respondent under the terms of the relevant insurance policies.After a complaint in the underlying lawsuit alleging slander, malicious prosecution, and bodily injury was amended to add Respondent as a defendant Respondent tendered the complaint to Farmers seeking defense and indemnity under a series of homeowners insurance policies and commercial general liability policies. Later, the Insurers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination that they were not obligated to defend and indemnity Respondent. The district court found that Insurers had no duty to defend Respondent under any of the policies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the claims fell within the scope of coverage of any of the policies at issue. View "Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Minemyer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed individual and class claims in Montana state court against GEICO after GEICO failed to advance pay Plaintiff’s medical bills and lost wages following a car accident caused by GEICO’s insured. GEICO removed the lawsuit to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Neither Plaintiff nor the district court questioned whether CAFA jurisdiction was proper.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the district court to conduct the necessary evidentiary inquiry and determine whether GEICO can sufficiently establish that more than $5 million is in dispute. The panel held that it could sua sponte question a defendant’s allegation of CAFA jurisdiction. The panel further concluded that the current record did not sufficiently demonstrate that CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement was met because it was not evident from the face of the complaint and the nature of the class claims that this controversy involved more than $5 million, nor did GEICO’s notice of removal and supporting declaration satisfactorily establish that more than $5 million was in dispute. View "BRANDON MOE V. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court determining that Plaintiff could not recover under a commercial general-liability (CGL) insurance policy issued by United Specialty Insurance Company, holding that when a CGL insurance policy excludes coverage for injuries arising out of an "assault or battery," the subjective intent of the person who committed the assault or battery is irrelevant.Brown County Care Center, an adult care facility, contracted with United for CGL insurance. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury arising from "any actual, threatened or alleged assault or battery." Plaintiff was living at the Center when he was attacked by another resident, who was later found by the trial court to be not guilty of felonious assault by reason of insanity. Plaintiff sued, and he and the Center entered into a settlement. Plaintiff later brought a declaratory judgment action against United to collect on the judgment. The trial court determined that Plaintiff could not recover under the policy. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the attack on Plaintiff qualified as a civil-law assault; and (2) because the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries arising for civil assaults the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Krewina v. United Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law