Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

At the heart of this appeal was the dispute over the scope of an insurance policy. The insureds, BV Jordanelle, LLC and BV Lending, LLC (collectively, "BV") obtained a mortgage on real property as security for a loan and acquired a title-insurance policy from Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. When the borrower defaulted, BV foreclosed on the property. But when a municipal assessment went unpaid, the municipality foreclosed, too. BV and the municipality litigated in state court; the municipality prevailed and obtained title to the property. After losing title to the property, BV sued Old Republic in federal district court, alleging that Old Republic had breached the title insurance policy by: (1) refusing to compensate BV for its loss of the property; and (2) failing to defend BV in the state-court litigation. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Old Republic, concluding that the policy did not entitle BV to either payment for its loss of the property or a defense in the state-court suit. BV appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "BV Jordanelle v. Old Republic National" on Justia Law

In June 2012, a hailstorm damaged Plaintiff KCOM’s motel. Soon a dispute arose between KCOM and its insurer, defendant Employers Mutual Casualty (EMC), over the extent of the damage. In October 2012, following receipt of an inspection report, KCOM submitted a proof of loss of $631,726.87. EMC admitted coverage but not the amount of loss. Dissatisfied, KCOM invoked the insurance contract’s appraisal provision. KCOM claimed there were issues with the appraisal process, prompting it to ultimately file suit against EMC, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of benefits, and bad faith breach of the insurance contract. The threshold question presented for the Tenth Circuit's review in this state law diversity action was whether the Court had appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s non-final order denying confirmation of a property loss appraisal. The Court concluded it did not, and dismissed the appeal. View "KCOM, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co." on Justia Law

In 2008, the Marchettis purchased real estate for $180,000, with a loan for that amount, plus $155,000, for planned improvements. Jonathon Marchetti acted as buyer, real-estate broker, mortgage broker, and general contractor. Three months earlier, Jonathon had been indicted for mortgage and wire fraud regarding other real-estate transactions. He ultimately pleaded guilty. The parcel, which the Marchettis nominally acquired from Seville, actually was owned by Lekich. A series of sham transactions orchestrated by Hodgman made it look as if Seville held title. In 2010 Lekich sought to quiet title. The Lender had the property appraised at $110,000, agreed to accept $110,000 from a Chicago Title Insurance policy as full satisfaction, and released the Marchettis from liability. Lekich’s suit settled. Chicago Title became subrogated to the Marchettis’ claims against their predecessors in title. Hodgman was indicted. Chicago Title obtained $37,500 in restitution. The Marchettis sued, claiming that Chicago Title owed them $37,500 from Hodgman, plus the $88,000 difference between the maximum value of the policy and the amount paid the Lender. The Marchettis had the property appraised for $202,000, and claimed that the insurer had to disburse the policy’s $198,000 maximum value. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Chicago Title. Market value matters only as one determinant of how much loss the owner suffers. The Marchettis suffered no loss; they had no equity interest in the property. View "Marchetti v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Kut Suen and May Far Lui (the Luis) owned a building that sustained water damage after a pipe burst while the building was vacant. The Luis' insurance policy for the building limited coverage for water damage based on vacancy: coverage was suspended if the building remained vacant for 60 consecutive days and, effective at the beginning of any vacancy, and there was no coverage for certain specified losses, including water damage. The Luis argued that the policy was ambiguous and should have been interpreted in the Luis' favor to mean that the exclusion of coverage for water damage would commence only after a 60-day vacancy. The Washington Supreme Court rejected the Luis' arguments and found that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for water damage immediately upon vacancy. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's contrary holding and affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Lui v. Essex Insur. Co." on Justia Law

After a foreclosure case, Davis filed various claims against an entity that he calls “Wells Fargo U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust, 2005-11” as the purported holder of Davis’s mortgage. Davis also sued Assurant, believing it to be the provider of insurance on his home. His claims arise from damage that occurred to his house after Wells Fargo locked him out of it, which went unrepaired and worsened into severe structural problems. The district court dismissed Davis’s claims against Wells Fargo, on the grounds that claim preclusion and a statute of limitations barred recovery, and claims against Assurant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Davis lacked standing to bring those claims because he sued the wrong corporate entity, namely Assurant, when he should have sued Assurant’s wholly-owned subsidiary, ASIC. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of Wells Fargo, but vacated as to Assurant. Standing is a jurisdictional predicate, but generally focuses on whether the plaintiff is the right party to bring particular claims, not on whether the plaintiff has sued the right party. View "Davis v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

Defendant Dylan Stinson appealed a judgment finding him liable to plaintiffs Kevin and Linda Flanagan for damage to their vacation home from a fire started in an outdoor fireplace on their deck by a group of teenagers who were there without their permission. Stinson contended that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to find him liable for the damage under a concerted-action theory; (2) it was improper for the trial court to admit and rely on evidence of the actual cash value of the lost personal property; and (3) the pre and postjudgment interest rate awarded by the trial court was unconstitutional under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Concord General Mutual Insurance Company v. Gritman" on Justia Law

Richard and Susan Millies purchased a secluded piece of property in Stevens County overlooking Deer Lake. Their title company overlooked an easement that could have rendered the property far less secluded. The title insurer, LandAmerica Transnation Title Insurance Company, conceded that the easement had been overlooked in the title search and conceded coverage for the omission. After the two sides could not agree on the proper amount of compensation, the Millies sued on a variety of grounds. The jury returned a verdict in favor of LandAmerica, and the Millies appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Millies v. LandAmerica Transnation" on Justia Law

Amy Smith, individually and as next friend of her daughter Tyasia Brown, sued her landlord, Bobby Chupp for injuries Brown allegedly sustained as the result of ingesting lead from deteriorating lead-based paint at the house Smith rented from Chupp. The house was insured by Chupp under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued by Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (GFB). After Chupp tendered Smith’s claims to GFB under the provisions of the policy, GFB filed a declaratory judgment action against Smith and Chupp seeking a determination that Brown’s injuries were not covered under the policy and that it had no duty to defend Chupp against Smith’s claims. The Georgia Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding, as a matter of first impression, that personal injury claims arising from lead poisoning due to lead-based paint ingestion were not excluded from coverage pursuant to an absolute pollution exclusion in CGL insurance policy covering residential rental property. Because the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that lead-based paint was not clearly a “pollutant” as defined by the policy, it reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in this case. View "Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith" on Justia Law

APM, a property management company, sought a builders risk insurance policy from TCI Insurance Agency, Inc. to cover an apartment building under construction in Fargo. Jay Alsop, APM's president, discussed insurance policies with TCI's agent Devin Gaard. One policy in particular, from Philadelphia Insurance Company, covered lost rent and other "soft costs," such as interest. Alsop also received a quote from a different insurance agency for another policy from Travelers Insurance Company, which was cheaper than the Philadelphia policy. The Travelers policy did not have coverage for lost rent and soft costs. Alsop informed Gaard about the Travelers policy and requested Gaard to procure the policy as it was quoted by the other agency, without change. A fire at the construction site delayed the opening of the apartment building for five months. APM filed a claim under the insurance policy for damages caused by the fire, including lost rent and interest charges. Travelers paid part of the claim, but denied the claim for lost rent and interest because the policy did not provide coverage for those costs. APM sued TCI, alleging TCI and Gaard were negligent for failing to offer APM a policy endorsement that provided additional coverage for lost rent and soft costs. TCI denied liability and moved for summary judgment, claiming that APM did not request the additional coverage for lost rent and soft costs and that TCI and Gaard were not required to offer the additional coverage to APM. The district court granted TCI's motion, concluding APM failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gaard breached his duty to APM. The court also concluded Gaard's duty was not enhanced because APM failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact indicating a special relationship existed between APM and TCI. On appeal, APM argued the district court erred in deciding there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether: (1) Gaard breached his duty to APM; and (2) a special relationship existed between APM and TCI. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to TCI. View "APM, LLP v. TCI Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Boardwalk Apartments, L.C. sued State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for breach of an insurance policy, contending that State Auto had underpaid on the policy after one of Boardwalk’s eight apartment buildings (Building 1) was destroyed in a fire. In district court, State Auto contended that Boardwalk was underinsured under the policy’s coinsurance provision. Under this provision, Boardwalk’s insurance benefits were reduced if the value of the Boardwalk apartment complex exceeded the policy limit. Before trial, the district court issued two rulings: (1) for purposes of the policy’s coinsurance provision, the value of the apartment complex did not include the cost of complying with laws and ordinances regulating the construction and repair of buildings ("law-and-ordinance costs"); and (2) the district court excluded reference at trial to either the coinsurance provision or the possibility that Boardwalk was underinsured. At trial, the jury valued the Boardwalk complex below the policy limit. Based on this valuation, the district court concluded that Boardwalk was not underinsured under the coinsurance provision. In addition to valuing the apartment complex, the jury found that State Auto had underpaid for the loss of Building 1. As a result, the court awarded damages to Boardwalk. State Auto appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: (1) the district court abused its discretion by excluding reference to the coinsurance provision; and (2) incorrectly construed the coinsurance provision. In light of these errors, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Boardwalk Apartments v. State Auto Property" on Justia Law