Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The school district filed suit against ACE, seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the school district's legal liability insurance policy provided coverage for a teacher's retaliatory discharge lawsuit filed against the school district and the principal of Pine Bluff High School. The school district argued that coverage existed for the underlying lawsuit or, alternatively, ACE waived all defenses to coverage and was estopped from claiming no coverage.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that the single claim provision unambiguously applies and that neither the 2015 Policy nor the 2016 Policy provide coverage for the school district's claim based on the teacher's September 22, 2016 lawsuit. The court applied Arkansas law and held that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are inapplicable here. View "Pine Bluff School District v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this insurance dispute, holding that the Legislature has clearly and unequivocally excluded captive insurers from the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (USCPA), Ky. Rev. Stat. 304.12-230.Plaintiff brought this action against various healthcare defendants. The medical negligence claims were eventually settled. Thereafter, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief as to his bad faith insurance claim against First Initiatives Insurance, Ltd., a foreign captive insurance entity that provides self-insurance for Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc. The court granted summary judgment for Catholic Health and First Initiatives. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that First Initiatives, as a captive insurer, is not subject to the USCPA. View "Merritt v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the district court that Farmers Insurance Exchange had no duty to defend the Insureds in this case but reversed the district court's holding that the duty to indemnify was not justiciable, holding that when there is no duty to defend there cannot be a duty to indemnify.Defendants in two underlying lawsuits (together, the Insureds) tendered the claims to Farmers, with whom they had a homeowners insurance policy. Farmers concluded that coverage was not available because the claims asserted intentional conduct by the Insureds and filed the instant declaratory judgment action to confirm that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify. The district court granted summary judgment to Farmers, concluding that there was no coverage under the policy and that the issue of indemnification was not justiciable. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded there was no coverage under the policy; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying the Insureds more time for discovery; but (3) erred in concluding that the issue of whether Farmers had a duty to indemnify was not justiciable. View "Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Wessel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting motions to dismiss filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, holding that the district court did not err in granting the motions to dismiss.Plaintiffs filed a complaint against State Farm and Farmers alleging, among other claims, common law bad faith and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The insurers filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' bad faith claims on the basis that the liability of State Farm and Farmers was not reasonably clear. View "Shepard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Prairie sued Coyle in Illinois state court concerning the replacement of valves purchased by Prairie. Coyle's insurer, Federated, sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Coyle in that suit. After Coyle answered Federated’s complaint, Federated moved for judgment on the pleadings. Coyle opposed the motion and later moved for leave to file supplemental briefs to show that the state-court action potentially fell within Federated’s coverage obligations. The district court denied Coyle’s motions to file supplemental briefs and granted Federated judgment on the pleadings. The court ruled that Prairie’s complaint did not allege “property damage” or an “occurrence” because Prairie only sought damages for the repair and replacement of defective products—purely economic losses. Prairie’s counsel had clarified at a discovery hearing that “Prairie was not making a claim for loss of use but rather for the costs of replacing the allegedly defective valves and the associate piping” and the defectiveness of the valves was foreseeable.The Seventh Circuit reversed. In granting Federated’s motion, the court relied on some of the new facts that Coyle had unsuccessfully moved to introduce through supplemental briefs while ignoring other facts. The court’s handling of the case ran afoul of local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and deprived Coyle of its right to present material factual evidence bearing on the central issue in the case. View "Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Coyle Mechanical Supply Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff's boat was stolen, Geico denied coverage based on plaintiff's misrepresentation that he was in possession of the boat. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of uberrimae fidei.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Geico and denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court held that plaintiff's misrepresentation voided his policy ab initio. Based on the record, the court concluded that plaintiff's initial policy, by its terms, expired on May 5, 2018, because he did not pay the required premium for the new policy period. Therefore, plaintiff's boat was uninsured between May 5, 2018, and when he first called Geico on May 25, 2018. Although plaintiff is correct that the doctrine of uberrimae fidei applies only when an insurer issues a policy, not when a policy is already in full force, his policy was not in full force on May 25th because it had expired. The court also concluded that plaintiff's statements were material to Geico's issuance of coverage on May 25, even if by renewal and backdating. Therefore, the district court properly applied the doctrine of uberrimae fidei and correctly held that plaintiff's renewal policy was void ab initio. View "Quintero v. Geico Marine Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The underlying controversy entailed will-, estate-, and insurance-contest litigation commenced in 2008 by Appellee Jeffrey Stover in his capacity as the attorney for Appellant, David Clark, who was the testator’s brother. In 2010, Appellee Stover also lodged a second complaint on behalf of Monica Clark, the testator’s mother, now deceased. After the claims in both actions failed, Appellant and Mrs. Clark filed this legal malpractice action in 2015, advancing claims of professional negligence and breach of contract against Appellee Stover and his law firm. Upon Appellees’ motion, the common pleas court awarded summary judgment in their favor, finding, as relevant here, that Appellant and Mrs. Clark were aware of the alleged negligence and the asserted breach more than four years before they lodged the malpractice action. Since the applicable statutes of limitations provided for commencement of a negligence action within two years after accrual, and a contractual action within four years after breach, the county court found the claims to be untimely. The Superior Court affirmed on the "occurrence rule." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address the "continuous representation rule," under which the applicable statutes of limitations would not run until the date on which Appellees' representation was terminated. Appellant maintains that this rule should be adopted in Pennsylvania to permit statutes of limitations for causes of action sounding in legal malpractice to be “tolled until the attorney’s ongoing representation is complete.” While the Supreme Court recognized "there are mixed policy considerations involved, as relating to statutes of limitations relegated to the legislative province, we conclude that the appropriate balance should be determined by the General Assembly." The Superior Court judgment was affirmed. View "Clark (Est of M. Clark) v. Stover, et al" on Justia Law

In a matter of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in this case to consider whether Section 310.74(a) of the Insurance Department Act of 1921 prohibited a licensed insurance producer from charging fees in addition to commissions in non-commercial, i.e. personal, insurance transactions. During its investigation, the Department discovered that, between March 2011 and October 2015, appellants charged a non-refundable $60- $70 fee to customers seeking to purchase personal insurance products. These fees were collected from the customers before appellants prepared the insurance policy applications. One consumer complaint indicated appellants kept an “un- refundable broker application fee” when the consumer declined to buy a policy. The Department’s investigation also revealed appellants paid a “one-time” $50 referral fee to car dealership sales personnel when they referred their customers in need of insurance. The Department concluded appellants’ fee practices included improper fees charged to consumers “for the completion of an application for a contract of insurance” and prohibited referral payments to the car dealerships. The Supreme Court held lower tribunals did not err when they determined Section 310.74(a) of the Act did not authorize appellants to charge the $60-$70 non-refundable fee to their customers seeking to purchase personal motor vehicle insurance. The Commonwealth Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s Adjudication and Order was affirmed. View "Woodford v. PA Insurance Dept." on Justia Law

After Mark Braswell died when his road bike collided with a stopped truck, his survivors filed suit against the truck's owner, the Brickman Group. Brickman was primarily insured by ACE and secondarily insured by AGLIC. ACE rejected plaintiffs' three settlement offers before and during trial. The jury ultimately awarded plaintiffs nearly $28 million, plaintiffs and Brickman settled for nearly $10 million, and AGLIC paid nearly $8 million of the amount. AGLIC then filed suit against ACE, arguing that because ACE violated its Stowers duty to accept one of the three settlement offers for the primary policy limits, ACE had to cover AGLIC's settlement contribution. The district court agreed.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that ACE's Stowers duty was triggered by plaintiffs' third offer, and that ACE violated this duty. In this case, the offer generated a Stowers duty because it "proposed to release the insured fully" and it was not conditional. Furthermore, the evidence was sufficient to support that ACE violated its Stowers duty by failing to reevaluate the settlement value of the case and accept plaintiffs' reasonable offer. View "American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme held that the trial court did not err in determining that Defendants were not afforded underinsured motorist and medical payments coverage under an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff, an insurance company, to a family member.Defendants argued that they were entitled to medical payments and underinsured motorist coverage under Plaintiff's policy because they were "residents" of the insured's "household." Plaintiff disputed coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action in superior court, arguing that Defendants were not residents of the insured's household at the time of the accident. The trial court entered summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding as a matter of law that Defendants were not entitled to coverage under the policy. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in determining that Defendants are not entitled to coverage under the policy and that the trial court appropriately awarded summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Inc. v. Martin" on Justia Law