Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment holding that an insurance company was not obligated under an insurance policy to defend the insureds in underlying copyright infringement suits. At issue is whether the insureds were subject to the policy exclusion for injury purportedly caused by an insured in the business of "broadcasting" or "telecasting."The court concluded that the insurance company does not owe the insureds a duty to defend under the policy because "broadcasting," as used in its Media Exclusion is not ambiguous and applies to the insureds' business. Furthermore, the insureds' argument that the plain and ordinary meaning of "broadcasting" does not apply here fails. In this case, the language of the policy does not suggest an intention to adopt a specialized definition of "broadcasting." Therefore, the court rejected the insureds' invitation to discard the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "broadcasting" in favor of its preferred definitions. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurance company. View "Dish Network Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma, Inc., suspended operations of its retail stores and donations centers on March 25, 2020, to comply with state and local orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. After suffering losses due to the shutdown, Goodwill sued its insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”), under its commercial lines policy. The policy provided coverage for “loss of Business Income” when the insured must suspend its operations due to “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property. The district court granted Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss, concluding the policy did not cover Goodwill’s loss and that the policy’s Virus Exclusion barred coverage. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Goodwill Industries Central v. Philadelphia Indemnity" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the term "civil action" in Mass. Gen. Laws 27-7-2.2 refers to a judicial proceeding that is commenced by the filing in court of a complaint and all other required documents together with fees.This case involved an accident in which Horace Johnson and Carlton Johnson were seriously injured when Horace was driving. Before any party filed suit, Carlton's counsel sent a letter to Arbella Mutual Insurance Company, which had issued an automobile insurance policy to Horace, demanding a settlement in the amount of the $100,000 policy limit. After Arbella indicated its acceptance of the settlement offer Carlton and his mother (together, Plaintiffs) filed suit. The case was removed to federal district court, which granted summary judgment to Defendants, rejecting Carlton's argument that section 27-7-2.2 applied to the case and rendered Arbella's acceptance of the settlement offer ineffective. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals certified the instant question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that "civil action" in section 27-7-2.2 refers to a judicial proceeding which is commenced by the filing of a complaint and all other required documents together with the fees prescribed by law. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A congregation of the hierarchical Church of God purchased an insurance policy from GuideOne Specialty Mutual Insurance Company (GuideOne) covering the risk of fire damage to a church building that was held by the congregation, as agent of the greater church, in trust for the benefit of the larger church body. After the local congregation voted to sever its relationship with the Church of God, a regional oversight authority took over as the agent/trustee holding the property on behalf of the greater church, after which the previously affiliated local congregation moved out, and the new agent added the property to its own insurance policy, with Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual), covering the same risk. Fire destroyed the building while both policies were in effect. Church Mutual paid the claim. GuideOne denied coverage on the ground that the former local congregation no longer had an insurable interest in the property. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal was whether Church Mutual was entitled to contribution from GuideOne. The trial court concluded the answer was no. While the appellate court disagreed with certain aspects of the trial court’s statement of decision, it concluded the trial court reached the correct result. The Court of Appeal also concluded the trial court correctly determined Church Mutual was not entitled to prevail against GuideOne on a separate subrogation cause of action. View "Church Mutual Ins. Co. v. GuideOne Specialty Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Neil Hall appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Allstate) on his claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Hall challenged the district court’s determination that Allstate successfully asserted the affirmative defense of failure to cooperate, and that his bad faith claim also failed as a result. Hall was injured in a car accident caused by underinsured motorist Teri Johnson. Johnson only carried $25,000 in liability insurance coverage. Hall carried underinsured motorist coverage through Allstate. Allstate gave Hall permission to settle with Johnson for her $25,000 limit. Hall’s counsel submitted a request for benefits to Allstate asserting that he was entitled to more than the $25,000 he had received. An Allstate claims adjuster reviewed the medical expenses in the letter and determined that the reasonable amount of expenses was $25,011.68. Allstate sent Hall’s counsel a payment of $11.68 along with a letter that stated: “I will be in contact with you to resolve the remaining components of your client’s claim.” Counsel did not respond to any of the five attempts over three months: two voicemails and three letters. Without any prior notice to Allstate, Hall filed suit against Allstate for breach of contract, statutory unreasonable delay or denial of payment of benefits, and common law bad faith. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, finding that because the district court found the insured's failure to cooperate resulted in a material and substantial disadvantage to the insurer, the insurer properly denied coverage on this ground, and summary judgment was proper as to the insured's bad faith claim. View "Hall v. Allstate Fire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Insureds and against Insurer in reliance upon its prior decision in N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gurley, 139 N.C. App. 178 (2000), holding that the lower courts erred.Matthew Bronson, who was intoxicated, collided with a vehicle owned by Pamela Dana, resulting in serious injuries to Pamela and William Dana, who was riding in the passenger seat. Pamela died from her injuries. At the time of the accident, Pamela was insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by Insurer. William, individually and as administrator of Pamela's estate, claimed to be entitled to an additional $74,750 in underinsured motorist coverage over the amount that Insurer had already tendered to them. Insurer filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the amount of underinsured motorist coverage it was required to provide to the Danas. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Danas, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the application of Gurley in this case was error. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of a single justice denying Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and under the doctrine of present execution, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate an appropriate occasion for exercise of the extraordinary power of general superintendence.Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioner, her insurer, alleging, among other things, that Petitioner violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D (count three). The district court granted summary judgment for Respondent on all counts except for count three. Petitioner brought this petition arguing that requiring it to go forward on count three compelled it to engage in frivolous litigation. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief was not appropriate under the facts of this case. View "Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Salaman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Noranda Aluminum Holding Corporation, an aluminum-products manufacturer, won a judgment against its insurance companies for more than $28 million. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, and the Superior Court awarded Noranda post-judgment interest at 6 percent (the same rate as pre-judgment interest) because that was the legal rate in effect when the insurance liability first arose. On appeal, Noranda argued the Superior Court should have used an interest rate of 7.5 percent, which was the legal rate on the date judgment was entered. To this, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that, in 6 Del. C. section 2301(a)'s final sentence, the judgment entered by the Superior Court in Noranda’s favor “shall, from the date of the judgment, bear post-judgment interest of 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate[.]” Because the Federal Reserve discount rate was 2.5 percent on October 17, 2019, the date the Superior Court entered judgment, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to award Noranda post-judgment interest at 7.5 percent. View "Noranda Aluminum Holding Corporation v. XL Insurance America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the appellate division of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) granting Plaintiff's petition for award of compensation, holding that an employee is not required to give notice of his occupational disease claim to his former employer's insurer when the employer no longer exists.Nearly twenty years after retiring from his employment Plaintiff underwent surgery for lung cancer and was later diagnosed with asbestosis. Plaintiff filed five petitions for award of compensation, each alleging a different date of injury and naming and different employer and insurer pairing. The ALJ (1) found that Plaintiff's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred when he was working for Auburn Sheet Metal, which was insured by Maine Employers' Mutual Insurance Company (MEMIC) but no longer existed, and (2) granted Plaintiff's petition for an award of compensation. The appellate division concluded that Plaintiff was not required to provide notice to MEMIC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate division did not err in concluding that the workers' compensation statute does not impose on an injured employee whose employer no longer exists the duty to give notice to the insurer. View "Desgrosseilliers v. Auburn Sheet Metal" on Justia Law

First Baptist retained Skyline to provide emergency remediation services to address wind damage to First Baptist’s real estate. Skyline then received the right to collect any proceeds from First Baptist's insurance policy with Church Mutual. Church Mutual subsequently disputed coverage in part and Skyline filed suit to recover the value of services provided to First Baptist but not paid by Church Mutual.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Skyline's claims because they were barred by the applicable North Carolina statute of limitations. The court found that the applicable statute of limitations is three years from the date of loss, and agreed that Skyline's claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract are time barred because Skyline brought this action in November 2019, more than three years after the time of loss; October 2016. The court denied as moot Church Mutual's motion to strike part of Skyline's reply brief. View "Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law