Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Liberty insured Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout preventer used on Deepwater Horizon, for potential losses associated with the blowout preventer. After Cameron settled with BP, Cameron sought coverage from Liberty but Liberty refused to pay. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Cameron on its breach of contract claim; reversed the district court's denial of Cameron's motion for attorney's fees; and remanded for a determination of the proper amount of those fees. The court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Whether, to maintain a cause of action under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code against an insurer that wrongfully withheld policy benefits, an insured must allege and prove an injury independent from the denied policy benefits? View "Cameron Int'l Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking additional coverage under their flood insurance policy after their home was damaged during Hurricane Ike. The district court denied plaintiffs' claim for additional building coverage on the ground that the total recovery they had already received from insurers exceeded their total loss. As for contents coverage, the district court awarded $2,500 for some car parts damaged in the storm. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that federal common law governing the National Flood Insurance Program recognizes the rule against double recovery and affirmed the ruling that plaintiffs' are not entitled to additional building coverage. However, the court vacated the personal property award to plaintiffs because they concede it was in error. View "Pye v. Fidelity Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Ins." on Justia Law

MRMC purchased a primary-insurance policy from Zurich and excess insurance from AXIS. MRMC filed suit to recover under its primary- and excess-insurance policies after suffering losses in a state lawsuit. The trial court granted AXIS summary judgment. The court held that the AXIS policy unambiguously precludes exhaustion by below-limit settlement. In this case, the AXIS policy is not triggered where MRMC pays the difference between Zurich’s liability limit and a below-limit settlement releasing Zurich of any further obligations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Martin Resource Mgmt. Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm in plaintiff's suit contending that State Farm's breach of its fiduciary duty caused the excess judgment in an underlying lawsuit. The court made an Erie guess that the Mississippi Supreme Court would not impose a duty to timely offer to settle a claim in which the claim amount greatly exceeds the policy limits, absent a settlement offer by the third-party claimant. Further, an insurer has no duty to timely disclose the policy limits to a third-party claimant. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding no genuine dispute that the excess judgment was not caused by State Farm’s failure to advise plaintiff of his potential excess exposure and right to retain independent counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hemphill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins." on Justia Law