Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

This action arose from the murder of a teenager by her two friends. The victim’s parents filed a wrongful death action against the killers and the two women they lived with, Tara Clendenen and Rachel Shoaf. Clendenen and Shoaf were insured under homeowner’s insurance policies issued by American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) and Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie). Although not parties to the state court action, ANPAC and Erie filed declaratory judgment actions in the federal district court seeking a determination that the homeowner’s insurance policies did not provide coverage for the claims being asserted in the complaint and that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants. The federal court found that it was unclear whether coverage was available to Sheaf and Clendenen in the state court action and certified questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held (1) the unambiguous intentional/criminal acts exclusions in the insurers’ policies precluded liability coverage to Clendenen and Shoaf for the claims in the underlying case because the murder was expected or intended by the killers, co-insureds under their respective policies; and (2) the unambiguous severability clauses in the insurers’ policies did not prevail over the unambiguous intentional/criminal acts exclusions. View "American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Clendenen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in accident while working for Speed Mining LLC. Plaintiff and his wife (together, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Speed Mining. Plaintiffs also named as defendants related companies and individuals (collectively, the Baughan defendants). At the time of the accident, Speed Mining was a named insured on a workers’ compensation policy of insurance issued by Old Republic. Plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits under Speed Mining’s workers’ compensation policy. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add a declaratory judgment action against Old Republic, as it had asserted a statutory subrogation lien with respect to any settlement obtained by Plaintiffs from the Baughan defendants. Old Republic asserted its own declaratory judgment action against Plaintiffs. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Old Republic subsequently filed a W. Va. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from entry of judgment order. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in denying Old Republic’s Rule 60 motion; but (2) the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs because Old Republic’s claim for subrogation failed. View "Old Republic Ins. Co. v. O'Neal" on Justia Law

William and Sarah Bassett, who were insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleged that State Farm engaged in unfair trade practices with regard to the Bassetts’ assertion of unfair trade practices. The Bassetts based their claim on the assertion that State Farm never properly offered additional uninsured coverage, as State Farm was statutorily required to do. The circuit court granted the Bassetts’ motion to compel answers to three interrogatories seeking the names, addresses and telephone numbers of State Farm insureds in West Virginia who may have experienced difficulties regarding their uninsured motorist coverage. State Farm filed this original proceeding in prohibition asking the Court to prohibit enforcement of its discovery order. The Supreme Court granted relief, as moulded, prohibiting enforcement of the order granting the Bassetts’ motion to compel, concluding that the circuit court erred by failing to bar the disclosure of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of State Farm’s other insureds. View "State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Jeffrey D. Cramer" on Justia Law

Respondent was injured in a car accident caused by a hit-and-run driver. Respondent filed an uninsured motorist suit against the unknown driver seeking damages. State Farm, Respondent’s uninsured motorists’ insurance carrier, defended the lawsuit. State Farm advanced Respondent $30,628 on her damages before trial, but after the jury returned a verdict for Respondent, the circuit court refused State Farm any credit against the final judgment for the advance payment. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment order, holding that the court erred (1) when it refused to deduct State Farm’s advance payment against the final judgment, and (2) in calculating prejudgment interest. Remanded. View "Doe v. Pak" on Justia Law

U.S. Silica Company has been named as a defendant in numerous silica claims seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to silica sand. When three policies of comprehensive general liability insurance purchased by U.S. Silica’s predecessor from the Travelers Indemnity Company were discovered, U.S. Silica informed Travelers of the silica claims and requested coverage and reimbursement under these Travelers policies. When it failed to receive a response, U.S. Silica filed a declaratory judgment against Travelers. The jury found that Travelers breached its insurance policies when it refused to pay U.S. Silica’s claims for insurance coverage for the silica lawsuits and that Travelers owed U.S. Silica $8 million as a result. The circuit court denied Travelers’ post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and awarded U.S. Silica attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that U.S. Silica failed to demonstrate that its explanation for its significant delay in notifying Travelers of the silica claims was reasonable, and therefore, U.S. Silica was not entitled to coverage under the subject Travelers policies. Remanded with directions to enter an order granting Travelers’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Travelers Indem. Co. v. U.S. Silica Co." on Justia Law

Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company submitted to the Virginia Insurance Commissioner a rate, form, and product filing seeking approval for a new product endorsement entitled Rate Protection Endorsement (RPE). The Commissioner approved the Erie filing, as amended. Respondent, an Erie insured, filed an administrative complaint against Erie seeking a determination as to whether the Commissioner’s approval of Erie’s RPE should be withdrawn. The Commissioner denied Respondent relief. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Commissioner was statutorily required to withdraw approval of Erie’s RPE. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court engaged in an improper re-examination of Erie’s rate and form policy filing for its RPE that was approved by the Commissioner, and therefore, the circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the Commissioner. View "Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. King" on Justia Law

Tenant died in a fire that he caused on property he rented from Landlords. Insurer paid Landlords, its insureds, for the property damage caused by the fire. Plaintiff, individually and in his capacity as the administrator of Tenant’s estate, filed a wrongful death claim against Landlords. Landlords filed an answer, which included a counterclaim filed by Insurer asserting a subrogation claim against Tenant’s estate for the proceeds Insurer paid to Landlord following the fire. The estate, in turn, argued that Tenant was an additional insured under Insurer’s homeowner’s policy and that Insurer could not seek subrogation against its own insured. Insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Tenant was not an insured under the homeowner’s policy. The circuit court concluded that Tenant was an “equitable insured” of Landlord’s insurance policy and, therefore, Insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against tenant’s estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Insurer had a right of subrogation against Tenant where (1) Tenant was not a named or definitional insured of Landlord’s policy; (2) Tenant purchased his own renter’s insurance after being advised to do so by Landlord; and (3) the lease agreement stated that Tenant was solely responsible for any damage he caused to the property. View "Farmers & Mechanics Mut. Ins. v. Allen" on Justia Law