Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs purchased property from Charles Johnson. During the pendency of the sale of the property, Johnson misrepresented the condition of the property and failed to disclose its prior use as a junkyard. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Johnson alleging various causes of action and seeking damages for loss of investment, undisclosed physical problems with the property, and emotional distress. While he owned the disputed property, Johnson maintained a homeowners insurance policy with Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate refused to defend or indemnify Johnson on Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs and Johnson subsequently reached an agreement resolving the underlying complaint, and the superior court entered a judgment against Johnson for $330,000. Plaintiffs then initiated a reach and apply action against Allstate. The trial court granted summary judgment for Johnson, determining that the policy did not cover the damages Plaintiffs suffered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' damages did not constitute covered "bodily injury" or "property damage" pursuant to the Allstate homeowners insurance policy. View "Langevin v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal with prejudice plaintiff's complaint seeking indemnification for property loss caused by fire under an insurance policy. At issue were two provisions in the policy: one requiring the insured to file suit on the policy within two years and the second requiring the insured, seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work as soon as reasonably possible. Because New York law did not clearly resolve the question of what happens to insured property that could not reasonably be replaced within two years, the court certified the question to the New York State Court of Appeals. View "Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Clarinet sued Essex alleging that Essex wrongfully refused to pay Clarinet under a commercial general liability insurance policy. Clarinet sought payment for expenses for stabilizing and demolishing a building that it owned, in accordance with Clarinet's interpretation of the policy. Essex denied coverage and refused payment. The insurance policy contained several conditions and exclusions, including the owned property exclusion. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Essex and denied relief to Clarinet because the owned property exclusion barred coverage. View "Clarinet v. Essex Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Upon Marcus Degen's purchase of a home, Marcus purchased a homeowner's insurance policy with Hanson Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota (HFMIC). Marcus, Tina Sellers, and Tina's two daughters moved into the house. One evening, while Marcus was leveling dirt on the property with a skid loader, Marcus hit and killed one of the girls, Adrianna. Tina pursued a wrongful death action against Marcus a year later. HFMIC filed a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to determine whether it had an obligation to indemnify or defend Marcus in the underlying wrongful death action. The trial court ruled in favor of HFMIC, determining that Adrianna was in Marcus's care and was therefore excluded from coverage under a household exclusion contained in the policy. Both Tina, as the personal representative of her daughter's estate, and Marcus appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly concluded that the phrase "in your care" was unambiguous and in concluding that Adrianna was in Marcus's care; and (2) because she was in Marcus's care, Adrianna was excluded from coverage under the household exclusion contained in the policy. View "Hanson Farm Mut. Ins. Co. of S.D. v. Degen" on Justia Law

This case involved multiple litigations among three parties - Insurer, insured Mortgagee, and Homeowner - arising out of a defect in the title to Homeowner's home. Insurer brought suit in the land court on behalf of Mortgagee seeking to reform the deed to the property or to equitably subrogate Homeowner's interest in the property behind Mortgagee's mortgage. Homeowner initiated suit in the superior court against Mortgagee. Eventually, all claims in both actions became part of a federal court case, which settled. Thereafter, Mortgagee filed a complaint against Insurer in the U.S. district court seeking to recover from Insurer for the costs Mortgagee incurred in defending against Homeowner's claims. The judge determined Insurer had no obligation under its title insurance policy to pay Mortgagee's defense costs but certified two questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that, under Massachusetts law (1) a title insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured in the entire lawsuit where one claim is within the scope of the title insurance coverage and other claims are not; and (2) a title insurer that initiates litigation similarly does not have a duty to defend the insured against all reasonably foreseeable counterclaims. View "GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

K&D Enterprises, through its manager, Mid-America, contracted to purchase an apartment complex. Prior to the closing, K&D Enterprises created a new company, Euclid-Richmond Gardens, and assigned its rights under the purchase agreement to that new company. Euclid-Richmond Gardens hired K&D Group, Inc., a property-management company, to manage the apartment. K&D Group hired former employees of Mid-America and assumed the operations of the complex. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation later conducted an audit and determined K&D Group was the successor in interest to the business operations of Mid-America, a determination that authorized the Bureau to base K&D Group's experience rating, in part, on Mid-America's past experience, which included a large workers' compensation claim. After K&D Group's administrative appeal was denied, K&D Group unsuccessfully filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and issued the writ of mandamus, holding that K&D Group was not a successor in interest for purposes of workers' compensation law, and thus, the Bureau abused its discretion when it transferred part of Mid-America's experience rating to K&D Group. View "State ex rel. K&D Group, Inc. v. Buehrer" on Justia Law

Levy Gardens appealed the district court's decision ordering Commonwealth to pay Levy Gardens pursuant to Levy Gardens' title insurance policy with Commonwealth. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Levy Gardens had coverage under the insurance policy and that Levy Gardens did not violate the conditions of the policy in a manner prejudicial to Commonwealth. The district court did not err in concluding that the insurance policy provided coverage for only the diminution in value of title to the property resulting from the zoning encumbrance. The district court's findings that Commonwealth's actions were not arbitrary and capricious and Commonwealth made its assertions in good faith were reasonable and supported by the record. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not manifestly err by declining to impose penalties to Commonwealth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Levy Gardens Partners 2007, LP v. Lewis Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose from a land development project dispute where the Retreat took out a short-term purchase loan from a Georgia bank to finance the acquisition of the land. At issue was the district court's interpretation of an exclusion in a title insurance policy issued by First American to the bank and the district court's decision that First American was entitled to summary judgment based on that exclusion. The court held that the district court correctly interpreted the terms of the title insurance contract; the district court's conclusion that the affidavit at issue would be admissible at trial was not an abuse of discretion; and the evidence demonstrated that the bank was fully aware of the Retreat property's lack of dedicated access when it extended the purchase loan and took out the insurance policy from First American. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and because First American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was appropriate. View "Cynergy, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased title insurance for a condominium unit she had recently purchased. Plaintiff's neighbor subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff's property was subject to a view easement. Plaintiff tendered the complaint to her title insurance company (Insurer) requesting a defense pursuant to her title insurance policy. Commonwealth denied Plaintiff's request based on certain exclusions in the policy. Plaintiff sued Insurer alleging a breach of contract and requesting a declaratory judgment that Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff against her neighbor's complaint. The superior court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the policy specifically excluded the view easement from coverage. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that due to the broad nature of the duty to defend and the law's requirement that insurance-policy interpretation be focused on the insured, Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff in the underlying litigation. View "Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Oakdale and Cincinnati disputed whether the commercial property insurance policy Oakdale purchased from Cincinnati covered a loss suffered by Oakdale in August 2009. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati, concluding that the policy excluded Oakdale's damages where the district court accepted Oakdale's specific calculations of common area and decided that they were insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the vacancy provision of the policy was met. View "Oakdale Mall Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law