Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Although the court usually may not review voluntary dismissals of claims or denials of motions for summary judgment, this case presented the unusual situation in which the court was asked to review the voluntary dismissal of a claim following a denial of a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that its review was appropriate in these circumstances because (1) the district court rejected the legal basis for appellants' counterclaim; (2) the district court disposed of all claims with prejudice; and (3) appellants consented to the final judgment solely to obtain immediate appeal of the prior adverse decision, without pursuing piecemeal appellate review. The court also interpreted several "excess" liability insurance policies, which provided insurance protection beyond the protection provided by underlying policies. The court concluded that the plain language of the insurance policies supported the view of the insurer appellees that the excess liability coverage was only triggered when liability payments reached the attachment point. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ali v. Fed. 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

R.I. Pools appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale, which insured R.I. Pools under commercial general liability policies. Scottsdale brought this action seeking declaratory judgment that it had no obligations under the policies with respect to suits brought against R.I. Pools by purchasers of swimming pools for damage the purchasers sustained when cracks developed in their pools. Because the district court erred in ruling that defects in R.I. Pool's work were not within the scope of an "occurrence" and never considered the crucial question whether the defects come within the subcontractor exception to the express exclusion of R.I. Pools's own work, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Because the duty to defend existed up until the point at which it was legally determined that there was no possibility for coverage under the policies, Scottsdale had not shown entitlement to any reimbursement for defense costs it previously expended. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to recover benefits as the beneficiary of a term life insurance policy upon the death of the insured. The district court entered judgment in favor of the insurance company, holding that it was entitled to rescind the policy because of a material misrepresentation made by the insured in securing the policy, and that plaintiff was therefore not entitled to a benefit. The court affirmed the judgment where plaintiff conceded that the insurance application contained information the insured knew to be untrue when the policy was delivered - that he had Stage IV colon cancer - and where the insurance company would not have issued the policy had the information been correct. View "Smith v. Pruco Life Ins. Co. of N.J." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. The primary issue one appeal was whether an act performed on adjacent property that caused damage to plaintiff's property could constitute "vandalism" under plaintiff's property insurance. The subsidiary question was whether "malicious damage" could be found to result from an act not directed specifically at the insured property. The court held that certification of the malice issue to the New York Court of Appeals was warranted and certified the question. View "Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Olin brought suit against its insurers, including American Home, regarding environmental contamination at Olin sites in the United States. On appeal, Olin challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Home. At issue was whether the $30.3 million attachment point for American Home's excess policies for the years 1966-69 and 1969-72 could be reached by the alleged property damage at Olin's Morgan Hill, California, manufacturing site. The court held that the plain language of Olin's policies with American Home required American Home to indemnify Olin for that damage. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America" on Justia Law

This declaratory judgment action involved a dispute over liability insurance coverage for property damage alleged to have been caused by the policyholder during construction of a residential building. The policyholder filed suit against Interstate seeking a declaration that its insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify. The district court ruled that the property was a "residential property" construction but not an "apartment" at the time the damage occurred and thus, the policyholder had no coverage. Because the court concluded that the property was an apartment building as defined by the insurance policy when the damage occurred, the court held that the policyholder was covered by the policy and therefore reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Ment Bros. Iron Works Co., Inc v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff insured, operator of a number of check cashing stores in the New York City area, contended that a criminal scheme perpetrated at its store constituted "robbery" within the meaning of its crime insurance policy which the defendant insurer issued. Because the court agreed with the district court that the policy was ambiguous and that the insured offered a reasonable interpretation of the policy permitting coverage, the court concluded that the insurer was liable under the policy and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insured. View "Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from a judgment by the district court in favor of insurance companies which had disclaimed any duty to defend or indemnify their policyholders in a separate state court action brought by a third party arising from an accident involving the operation of the policyholders' all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The Connecticut Supreme Court's answers to certified questions left no doubt that the district court correctly found that: (1) the only location relevant in determining whether the homeowner's policy provided the subject coverage was the site of the accident and (2) the accident did not occur at an "insured location," as that language was construed under Connecticut law. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Royal, declaring that the foundational homeowner's policy did not cover the ATV accident that allegedly caused injury to Connor. The court addressed remaining issues and subsequently affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Arrowood Indemnitv Co. v. King" on Justia Law

LSED sought to rescind an agreement to purchase bond insurance from FGIC and recover its $13 million premium payment. LSED based its claim on failure of cause, a tenet of Louisiana law that required all contracts be supported by cause. Because the court found that the principal cause of the agreement between the parties was the purchase of bond insurance to protect the bondholders in the event of default, not to reduce the interest rate LSED paid to borrow money, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc." on Justia Law