Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs acquired a homeowners' insurance policy from Defendant effective as of the closing date of the home they had entered into a contract to purchase. The closing date was scheduled to take place on March 31 but was delayed until May 20. On May 15, a fire completely destroyed the house. Defendant disclaimed coverage on the pertinent grounds that the dwelling was unoccupied at the time of the loss, and therefore, it did not qualify as a "residence premises" under the policy. Supreme court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The appellate division modified the order, concluding that the "residence premises" requirement in the policy failed to define what qualifies as "resides" for the purpose of attaching coverage and that the policy was ambiguous in the circumstances of this case, and otherwise denied summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there were issues of fact as to whether Plaintiffs' daily presence in the house, coupled with their intent to eventually move in, was sufficient to satisfy the policy's requirements; and (2) the term "residence premises" in the contract was ambiguous. View "Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y." on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case concerned whether a written settlement agreement compromising a contested property insurance claim constituted a "proof of loss" under La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(A)(1) sufficient to trigger the penalties set forth in La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(B) for the insurer's arbitrary and capricious failure to timely pay the settlement funds. Plaintiff, Katie Realty, Ltd., filed suit against defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Citizens), for its untimely handling of plaintiff's Hurricane Gustav property damage claim. The matter was settled through mediation. When Citizens failed to timely pay the settlement funds, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce settlement and assess penalties pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892 and 1973. In accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(B)(1), the District Court awarded plaintiff $125,000 in penalties. The court of appeal affirmed, finding the settlement agreement constituted sufficient "proof of loss" under the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(A)(1) and Citizens' misconduct warranted the imposition of penalties under La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(B)(1). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the written settlement agreement did not constitute satisfactory proof of loss under the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(A)(1) sufficient to trigger the penalties set forth in La. Rev. Stat. 22:1892(B)(1). Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and rendered judgment awarding plaintiff $5,000 in statutory penalties for Citizens' failure to timely pay the settlement funds in accordance with the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 22:1973(B)(2) and (C). View "Katie Realty, Ltd. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

In July 2001, Kaye Hankins entered into a home-construction contract with Elite Homes, Inc. ("Elite"). An August 2001 soil-test report on the subject property recommended that "a stabilizing blanket of natural silty clays . . . and/or compacted fill soils having a maximum 7-foot thickness" was required "to minimize the Yazoo Clay . . . swell or heave potential to within limits tolerable to a strong slab foundation . . . ." Hankins received assurances from Elite that the Yazoo clay "was nothing to be concerned about." She moved into the new home in April 2002. During Hankins's first year in the home, she reported to Elite numerous cracks, leaks, and difficulties in closing doors and windows. In September 2009, Hankins filed a complaint against Elite averring "that the damage which has occurred to said house . . . would not have occurred except for the negligence" of Elite. Thereafter, a "Default Judgment" of was entered against Elite. In August 2010, Hankins filed a "Suggestion for Writ of Garnishment" against Elite's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurer, Maryland Casualty Company/Zurich American Insurance Company ("Maryland Casualty"). In October 2010, a default judgment was entered against Maryland Casualty. Subsequently, Maryland Casualty filed a "Motion to Suspend Execution of Default Judgment against Maryland Casualty and For Leave to File Answer to Writ of Garnishment," which argued, inter alia, that because its CGL policy "exclud[ed] coverage for property damage caused by earth movement," then it "has no property or effects in its possession belonging to" Elite. Maryland Casualty then filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" on the same basis. The circuit court concluded that the "earth movement" endorsement "excludes the damages suffered by [Hankins] from coverage under the policy." Based thereon, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, and set aside the default judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Maryland Casualty's "earth movement" endorsement was unambiguous and operated to exclude the property damage Hankins suffered from coverage under the CGL policy. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to the insurance company, and the setting aside of the default judgment. View "Hankins v. Maryland Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Appellant was among a number of homeowners in multiple states claiming that their mortgage companies wrongfully demanded an increase in flood insurance coverage to levels beyond the amounts required by their mortgages. In this case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the pertinent mortgage provision explicitly gave the lender discretion to prescribe the amount of flood insurance. However, the Court held that the district court dismissal of Appellant's complaint must be vacated, as (1) a supplemental document given to Appellant at her real estate closing entitled "Flood Insurance Notification" reasonably may be read to state that the mandatory amount of flood insurance imposed at that time would remain unchanged for the duration of the mortgage; and (2) given the ambiguity as to the Lender's authority to increase the coverage requirement, Appellant was entitled to proceed with her breach of contract and related claims. View "Lass v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Home Federal agreed to lend up to $95.5 million to finance construction of a new ethanol production plant. When the developer of the plant ran into serious trouble finishing the project, the bank did not disburse the final $8 million. The developer defaulted on the debt and fired its general contractor, which then filed a mechanic’s lien on the property to recover $6 million allegedly owed it. When the bank sought to foreclose on its mortgage, the general contractor counterclaimed, asserting that its lien had priority over, or at least parity with, the bank’s mortgage. The bank tendered its defense to the title insurer under a policy that required the insurer to defend the bank against a “claim . . . alleging a defect, lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy.” The policy contained an exclusion from coverage for claims “created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to” by the insured. The district court ruled in favor of the title insurer. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The undisputed facts show that the title insurer breached its duty to defend the bank on the contractor’s claim that its mechanic’s lien had priority over or parity with the mortgage. View "Home Fed. Savings Bank v. Ticor Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a flood insurance policy from Appellee, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. Their policy was issued pursuant to a federal program under which private insurers issue and administer standardized flood insurance policies (WYO companies), and all claims are paid by the government. After a flood damaged their home in Rhode Island, including the contents of their basement, Plaintiffs sought compensation. American Bankers disallowed much of the amount claimed, asserting that the contents of Plaintiffs' basement were not covered by their policy. Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit in federal court, arguing that the Declarations Page of their policy created an ambiguity as to the scope of coverage and that, under federal common law and general insurance law principles, this ambiguity should be resolved in their favor. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of American Bankers. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claim was not remotely a claim on which a WYO company may be required to pay damages. View "McGair v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla." on Justia Law

In 2007, Fifth Third loaned Buford $406,000 in exchange for a mortgage on property that Buford purportedly owned. Fifth Third obtained a title-insurance policy from Direct Title, an issuing agent for Chicago Title. Direct Title was a fraudulent agent; its sole “member” was the actual title owner of the property and conspired with Buford to use that single property as collateral to obtain multiple loans from different lenders. When creditors foreclosed on the property in state court, Fifth Third intervened and asked Chicago Title to defend and compensate. Chicago Title refused to defend or indemnify. Chicago Title sought to avoid summary judgment, indicating that it needed discovery on the questions whether “Fifth Third failed to follow objectively reasonable and prudent underwriting standards” in processing Buford’s loan application and whether Direct Title had authority to issue the title-insurance policy. The district court granted Fifth Third summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that “When a party comes to us with nine grounds for reversing the district court, that usually means there are none.”View "Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this declaratory judgment proceeding, the defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of America, appealed a superior court order which ruled in favor of the plaintiff, The Barking Dog, Ltd., which operates a dog kennel and grooming business at several locations in New Hampshire. The court ruled that an insurance policy issued by the defendant provided coverage for damage to the plaintiff’s septic system and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $20,000, the agreed upon damage amount. The court also ruled that the defendant was not prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failure to disclose its expert’s report in a timely manner or its failure to disclose its expert’s curriculum vitae and, accordingly, permitted the plaintiff’s expert to testify at trial. The defendant argued that both rulings were error. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "The Barking Dog, Ltd. v. Citizens Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

In 2005 Truman and partners purchased a vacant commercial building for $175,000, insured for $4,250,000 in fire-related losses. The property, without the building, was worth more than with the building. After a minor accidental fire, Truman told an employee that if it ever caught fire again, just get out. Considering leasing, Truman stated that it would make more money if it burnt. By late 2006, Truman had less than $5,000 in personal bank accounts. Premiums were paid through November 17. The building burned down November 12. Truman, Jr. confessed that he had burned the building at his father’s direction. State charges were dismissed because of inability to corroborate junior’s testimony, as required under New York law. Truman was charged with aiding and abetting arson, 18 U.S.C. 844(i); mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341; use of fire in commission of a felony, 18 U.S.C. 844(h); and loan fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. Following a guilty verdict the district court granted acquittal and conditionally granted a new trial. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded for sentencing. Junior’s refusal to answer certain questions did not render his testimony incredible as a matter of law, and his prior state testimony was nonhearsay. Truman was not prejudiced by improper cross-examination or summation argument references to the cooperation agreement. View "United States v. Truman" on Justia Law

Liberty entered into a Master Declaration and Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a shopping mall. PMI purchased the property and entered into a Declaration that gave Liberty the right to prior approval of future purchasers and an option to purchase. PMI borrowed $3.5 million from Nationwide, using the property as collateral. Nationwide purchased title insurance from Commonwealth, containing the ALTA 9 endorsement. PMI defaulted and conveyed the property to Nationwide, which attempted to sell to Ironwood. Liberty’s successor, Franklin, refused to approve Ironwood under its rights conferred by the Declaration, based on Ironwood’s planned use as a school. Nationwide claimed that the restrictions upon which Franklin justified refusal rendered the property unusable and unsalable. Commonwealth denied the claim. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit remanded, holding that Commonwealth is obligated to cover the claim if the restriction causing Nationwide’s harm was covered by the ALTA 9 Endorsement and not expressly excepted on Schedule B. The district court then ruled in favor of Nationwide. The Third Circuit affirmed and remanded for determination of damages owed Nationwide, relying on the plain language of the ALTA 9 rather than deferring to industry custom and usage. View "Nationwide Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law