Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

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

This putative class action was one of a number of breach-of-contract suits being brought against financial institutions nationwide by mortgagors who claimed that they were improperly forced to increase flood insurance coverage on their properties. The plaintiff in this case asserted that Bank of America's demand that he increase his flood coverage by $46,000 breached both the terms of his mortgage contract and the contract's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that the pertinent provision of the mortgage unambiguously permitted the lender to require the increased flood coverage and, hence, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of dismissal in favor of the Bank, holding that the mortgage was reasonably susceptible to an understanding that supported the plaintiff's breach of contract and implied covenant claims. Remanded. View "Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" 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

Plaintiff, an American company (OneBeacon), claims that a Canadian company, (Aviva), is obligated to reinsure OneBeacon for policies OneBeacon issued to certain entities in the early 1980s. The district court granted summary judgment to Aviva. The First Circuit affirmed, stating that there was no evidence that Aviva agreed to provide reinsurance beyond the term of the first policy year. View "OneBeacon Am. Ins.Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada" on Justia Law

The EPA initiated efforts to remediate contamination at the Rhode Island Centredale Manor Superfund Site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 and issued a unilateral administrative order to compel entities, including NE Container and Emhart to remove hazardous substances that had been disposed of at the Site as part of the former operations of several companies. Emhart sued NE Container and its insurers, which had provided general commercial liability policies to NE Container during different time periods from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s. Travelers agreed to contribute to NE Container's defense pursuant to a reservation of rights, while PWIC took the position that it had no duty to defend. Travelers has incurred significant defense costs and filed this suit, seeking contribution from PWIC. The district court ruled that PWIC was not contractually obligated to defend NE Container in the Emhart action, observing that the alleged property damage occurred before the commencement of the PWIC policy period between 1982 and 1985. The First Circuit vacated. The district court mistakenly focused solely on the timing of the insured's alleged polluting activities, rather than also considering the potential timing of property damage caused by those activities. View "Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Providence WA Ins. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Oxford contracted with Airlarr, to work on Airlarr's airplane at an estimated cost close to $70,000. The work was complete in 2007 and, in 2010, Airlarr sued for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and state-law claims. The complaint alleged that a window cracked during the flight home and listed various defects: uncomfortable seats, leaking fuel injectors, a cracked turbocharger, and improperly installed carpet. Oxford notified Global, which had issued Oxford a commercial general liability and requested that Global defend it. Global disclaimed both coverage and duty to defend. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Global. The First Circuit vacated with respect to duty to defend. Duty to defend is ordinarily broader than its duty to indemnify. In Maine, the insurer must defend if the claims in the complaint create even a remote possibility of coverage. If Airlarr proves its case, there will likely be little indemnification since most of the claimed injuries appear to be covered by exclusions, but the duty to defend is triggered by any realistic possibility of any damage that might be within coverage and outside the exclusions and the damaged window creates that prospect.

In 2008, MDS purchased a vessel and executed a note in favor of FirstBank, secured by a preferred ship mortgage, under an agreement that required that they maintain insurance. In 2009, Customs and Border Protection seized the vessel as part of a drug enforcement action. The search and seizure damaged the vessel, significantly decreasing its value. Customs notified FirstBank, which initiated an administrative forfeiture proceeding, intervened in the criminal case, obtained voluntary dismissal of the indictment against the vessel, then submitted an insurance claim for "loss of the vessel including, without limitation, the value of the Bank's collateral, legal fees incurred in attempting to secure its release, as well as any applicable costs and interests." The insurer denied the claim. The district court granted FirstBank partial summary judgment and awarded $74,512.50 in attorneys' fees for costs and expenses incurred in securing release of the vessel and defending the validity of the policy. The First Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine issues of material fact.

Vicor manufacturers electronic equipment, including power converters. Ericsson designs, manufactures and sells electronic equipment, including radio base stations (RBSs) used to operate cellular telephone towers and networks. Ericsson purchased Vicor power converters for use in RBSs sold to wireless providers worldwide. The power converters began failing due to a manufacturing change in a component computer chip. Severe outages occurred in wireless networks. Ericsson sued Vicor and obtained a settlement of $50 million. Vicor's insurers paid $13 million. Vicor sought the additional $37 million. A jury awarded $17.3 million. The district court reduced the verdict by $4 million. The First Circuit vacated. The policies refer to "loss of use of property that is not physically injured." The district court should fashion jury instructions making clear that classic loss of use damages (lost profits or rental value of substitute property) incurred while repairs are pending may be recovered, but the actual costs of repairs may not. The court also may instruct the jury regarding the duty to mitigate loss and explain that costs of reasonable mitigation measures are recoverable, provided that the mitigation measures are distinguishable from ordinary repairs and result in a net savings.

Plaintiff, a Rhode Island resident and employee of Safety, a Massachusetts corporation, was driving one of Safety's vehicles in Massachusetts as part of her job and was seriously injured in an accident caused by the other driver. She filed a claim against the tortfeasor, whose insurer paid the full policy limit of $20,000.00. She also received workers' compensation through the Rhode Island system and settled a Underinsured Motorist claim against her personal automobile insurance company for the policy limit of $25,000.00. She sought to recover under the UIM provision of Safety's policy, provided by defendant. The First Circuit determined that Massachusetts law applied, under which an employee cannot recover under both WC and her employer's UIM policy, except where the employer has "explicitly purchased" the UIM coverage for employees injured in the course of their employment. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff had no evidence that the company explicitly purchased the coverage for employees injured in the course of employment that would permit a reasonable jury to resolve this case in her favor.

An 11-year-old child suffered long-term horrific abuse and, in 2005, was beaten nearly to death by her adoptive mother and stepfather. The child's legal guardian, brought suit against Carson Center and one of its employees, a licensed social worker, alleging that they failed to detect or report signs of ongoing physical abuse. The state court suit led to insurance coverage litigation in federal court. Insurers sought a declaratory judgment that the allegations fell within exclusions to coverage. The First Circuit affirmed entry of declaratory judgment for the insurers. The language of the policy exclusions precludes coverage for abuse that occurs to anyone in the insureds' "care, custody or control." At the time of the abuse the victim was not in the physical custody of the insureds, but had been receiving bi-weekly outpatient therapeutic services from them for 14 months covered by the policies in question. The exclusions are unambiguous.