Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Michele Dupree sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company, seeking to recover, under her homeowners’ insurance policy, the full cost of repair or replacement for the personal property that was destroyed in a fire at her home. Because the parties did not agree on the extent of the personal property loss, the parties submitted separate appraisals to an umpire under the process set forth in the insurance policy. The umpire issued an appraisal award that set forth the full replacement cost, the applicable depreciation, and the actual cash value loss of the property. Defendant paid plaintiff the actual cash value of the property but refused to pay the full replacement cost on the ground that plaintiff had failed to submit proof, in accordance with the replacement-cost provision of her insurance policy, that she had actually replaced the damaged property. The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam. On appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff’s appraisal award entitled her to only the actual cash value of her damaged personal property or whether defendant was liable for the full replacement cost of that property, i.e., actual cash value plus the applicable depreciation amount. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to the full replacement cost of her property because she did not submit proof of actual loss in accordance with her policy. Defendant was liable for only the actual cash value of plaintiff’s damaged personal property. View "Dupree v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Wayne Farms owned and operated a chicken processing plant in Oakwood. A fire broke out at the plant in 2003. Roughly three years later, Wayne Farms and its insurers filed suit against Crane Composites, Inc., which manufactured interior panels used in the plant, alleging Crane’s negligence caused the fire to spread extensively. In the meantime, the legislature enacted OCGA 9-11-68 (b) (1). The question for decision in this case is whether OCGA 9-11-68 (a tort reform, fee-shifting statute) could be applied to a negligence action in which the injury occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, but in which the action was filed after that date. The Supreme Court concluded that it could, and in so doing, overruled the case law set forth in "L. P. Gas Industrial Equipment Co. v. Burch," (701 SE2d 602) (2010)). View "Crane Company v. Wayne Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

RNT appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on its claim for breach of insurance contract against RNT, arguing that the trial court erroneously determined that the claim failed in light of the terms of RNT's policy. The court concluded that summary judgment on RNT's claim for breach of insurance contract was properly granted on the basis of the undisputed facts; condition 10(b) of the policy, which terminates an insurer's liability when the loan is paid off or the related mortgage is released; and exclusion 3(a) of the policy, which precludes coverage for defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by RNT. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "RNT Holdings v. United Gen. Title Ins." on Justia Law

DAFCO LLC sought recovery against Stewart Title Guaranty Co. on a lender's title insurance policy and against AmeriTitle, Inc., the closing agent for the lending transaction, claiming that it sustained injury as a result of a defective deed of trust. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Stewart and AmeriTitle, resulting in this appeal by DAFCO. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "DAFCO v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co" on Justia Law

Defendant, a law firm, contracted with Plaintiff for Plaintiff to provide title insurance on two mortgages that Defendant took as security from a client indebted to Defendant. Upon foreclosure of liens that were superior to those of Defendant, Defendant sought coverage from Plaintiff under the insurance policies, which seemingly provided coverage for priority liens. Defendant requested indemnification, and Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, arguing that coverage for priority liens was not intended by either party. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that because Defendant was aware of the prior mortgages, it could not expect to receive coverage it did not bargain for. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had conclusively shown that Defendant was aware that its bargain with the client for security of its debt would result in junior mortgages, and the insurance policies clearly excluded such encumbrances from coverage.View "First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lane Powell PC" on Justia Law

The Developer converted a vacant building into a residential condominium by gutting and refitting it. The Developer purchased Commercial Lines Policies covering bodily injury and property damage from Nautilus, covering periods from June 1998 through June 2000. The policies define occurrence as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but do not define accident. The policies exclude damage to “that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations;” eliminate coverage for damage to “that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it;” and contain an endorsement entitled “Exclusion—Products-Completed Operations Hazard.’ Construction was completed in 2000; the Developer transferred control to a board of owners. By May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage. In 2005, the Board hired a consulting firm, which found that the exterior brick walls were not fully waterproofed and concluded that the deterioration had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but that the present water penetration was the result of inadequate restoration of the walls. The Board sued the Developer. Nautilus denied coverage and obtained a declaratory judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the policy and finding that the shoddy workmanship, of which the board complained, was not covered by the policies; that Nautilus did not unduly delay pursuing its declaratory suit; and that the alleged damage to residents’ personal property occurred after the portions of the building were excluded from coverage.View "Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Dirs. of Regal Lofts Condo Ass'n" on Justia Law

I&W, Inc. owned a mining operation in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Excavation on its property created a cavern, which grew so large it infringed upon the subsurface property of the nearby Circle S Feed Store, LLC. This cavern, in turn, caused subsidence and damages to Circle S’s surface property. A New Mexico state court found I&W negligent and liable for damages its solution mining operations caused to Circle S’s property. I&W sought indemnification for the damages under its commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies, which had been issued by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent, in turn, sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that it was not required to indemnify I&W for damages awarded in the state court action. The district court granted summary judgment for Mid-Continent, holding that a provision of the policies’ Oil Industries Limitation Endorsement (Oil Endorsement) excluded coverage of the damages awarded in state court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the Oil Endorsement excluded coverage under the excess/umbrella policies issued to I&W, but held the Endorsement did not affect coverage under the primary policies. View "Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Circle S. Feed Store, et al" on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against, among other defendants, First American Title Insurance Company, with whom Plaintiffs had a title insurance policy for their property, for failing to defend the title to their property. As part of the settlement between Plaintiffs and defendants John and Jane Stevenson, the Stevensons paid Plaintiffs for an assignment of their rights under the title insurance policy, including any claims against First American. The Stevensons subsequently filed a cross-claim against First American for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith for refusing to defend the title to Plaintiffs’ lot. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Stevensons and awarded the Stevensons compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages to punish First American’s bad faith. The circuit court allowed the bad faith finding and the punitive damages award to stand. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the punitive damages award in this case was excessive and deprived First American of its right to due process, and (2) the appropriate amount of punitive damages in this case was $210,000. View "Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed a quiet title action against owners of adjacent lots, seeking a declaration that express easements granted in favor of the adjacent lots were invalid. The defendants filed counterclaims asserting that the express easements were valid. Plaintiffs submitted to Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("Commonwealth") a claim for defense pursuant to a policy of title insurance issued by Commonwealth insuring Plaintiffs’ property, but Commonwealth denied the claim. In the quiet title action, the district court extinguished the express easements and denied the counterclaims but concluded that the defendants possessed implied easements. While the quiet title action was pending, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against Commonwealth, seeking a determination that Commonwealth breached its duty under the policy by refusing to provide a defense to the counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in sustaining Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment because Commonwealth did not violate its contract with Plaintiffs by denying coverage or indemnification. View "Woodle v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case had its origins in a property damage action brought by Jason and Gina Corrick against B&B Transit, Inc. B&B Transit filed a notice and coverage claim with its insurer, Montpelier US Insurance Company. Montpelier eventually settled the case against B&B Transit. While the Corricks’ complaint was still pending, Respondents, including B&B Transit, filed a first-party bad faith claim against Petitioners, including Montpelier and its national coverage counsel, Charlston, Revich & Wollitz (“CRW”). Respondents subsequently served discovery requests on Petitioners. After CRW opposed disclosure of certain requested documents, Respondents filed a motion to compel disclosure of the documents. The circuit court entered an order requiring CRW to disclose certain documents. Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s discovery order. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition as moulded, concluding that part of the circuit court’s order permitting discovery of documents sought by Respondents was prohibited from enforcement because the documents were protected under the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. Montpelier US Ins. Co. v. Hon. Bloom" on Justia Law