Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Rachel Dixon was driving a car owned by her boyfriend, Rene Oriental-Guillermo (“Policyholder”), when she was involved in an accident with a vehicle in which Priscila Jimenez was a passenger, and which was owned by Iris Velazquez, and operated by Alli Licona-Avila. At the time of the accident, Dixon resided with Policyholder, who had purchased a personal automobile insurance policy (“Policy”) for his vehicle through Safe Auto Insurance Company (“Safe Auto”). The Policy contained an unlisted resident driver exclusion (“URDE”), which excluded from coverage any individuals who lived with, but were not related to, the policyholder, and whom the policyholder did not specifically list as an additional driver on the insurance policy. Jimenez and her husband Luis (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Dixon, Policyholder, and Licona-Avila. On May 13, 2015, Safe Auto filed a complaint against Dixon, Policyholder, and Appellants, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the enforceability of the URDE with respect to Dixon. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Safe Auto, finding the URDE unambiguous, valid, and enforceable, and concluding that Safe Auto had no duty under the Policy to defend or indemnify Dixon in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. Appellants timely appealed to the Superior Court, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in holding the URDE was valid and enforceable; (2) that the URDE violated the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”); and (3) that the URDE violated public policy. The Superior Court affirmed the order of the trial court in a divided, published opinion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concurred the URDE at issue in this case was enforceable, and affirmed the Superior Court. View "Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo" on Justia Law

Insured Directors, plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action seeking to allocate defense costs among insured and uninsured parties, appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of National Union. The court affirmed and held that the Insured Directors' failure to carry their burden of showing entitlement to 100% coverage was the dispositive issue before the district court and was dispositive on appeal. In this case, the district court appropriately considered the only issue properly raised before it. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the Insured Directors failed to meet their burden of proving an allocation different from that proposed by National Union. View "Brand v. National Union Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Plaintiffs, purportedly the assignees of certain private insurers (Medicare Advantage Organizations), brought a putative class action against State Farm to recover payments State Farm allegedly should have made to them as reimbursement for certain medical costs. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against one of the plaintiffs, MSP. and its attorneys. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ case with prejudice, when the problem was a fundamental lack of Article III standing so that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. However, the court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs a third opportunity to cure the defects in their pleadings. The court’s order, in substance, was a jurisdictional dismissal without prejudice with denial of leave to amend dismissal is without prejudice. The district court exceeded the bounds of its discretion when it imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Recovery Claims and its attorneys. View "MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question of state law to the Supreme Court of Arizona: What is the standard for determining whether National Union unreasonably withheld consent to Apollo's settlement with shareholders in breach of contract under a policy where the insurer has no duty to defend? View "Apollo Education Group, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and her underinsured motorist carrier did not entitle the underinsured defendant (Defendant) to a statutory reduction of the jury verdict rendered against her pursuant to the offset provision of Va. Code 8.01-35.1, holding that the tortfeasor remains primarily responsible for fully compensating the plaintiff for the injury the tortfeasor has caused.Plaintiff sustained injuries when her vehicle was struck by Defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff sued Defendant, asking for compensatory and punitive damages. Prior to trial, Plaintiff settled her underinsured motorist (UIM) claims against her insurance provider. The jury returned a verdict awarding Plaintiff damages against Defendant. Defendant moved to reduce the verdict against her because of the amount paid to Plaintiff by Plaintiff's insurer. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to reduce the judgment Plaintiff obtained against Defendant by the amount of the proceeds Plaintiff received from her UIM policy. View "Llewellyn v. White" on Justia Law

In 2008, Deerfield’s employee, Graff, had an automobile accident with Keeping. Deerfield had a primary commercial automobile insurance policy through American that covered it for up to $1 million in liability. Deerfield's broker, Gallagher, also helped Deerfield obtain an excess insurance policy from Landmark, to kick in after Deerfield’s liability exceeded $1 million. After Graff’s accident, Deerfield informed American and Gallagher through an intermediary company, Laurus. No one notified Landmark, even after Keeping filed suit. American assumed the defense and hired attorney Olmstead. American never offered the full policy value to settle the suit. More than a year before trial, Keeping made a $1.25 million demand, which was high enough to trigger Deerfield’s excess insurance coverage. American counter-offered $75,000. In 2014, weeks before trial, Landmark learned about Keeping’s lawsuit. Its claims adjuster evaluated the case at $500,000-$750,000. Before trial, Landmark was receiving regular updates as a passive bystander. Before the verdict was announced, American assumed that the jury had sided with the defense and did not resume settlement negotiations. Deerfield did not know about the negotiations, although Olmstead was involved. Landmark knew and advised that American should settle within the primary policy limit. The jury reached a verdict that remitted to $2.3 million. Landmark sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have to cover the loss. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Landmark, holding that Deerfield’s notice was unreasonably late as a matter of law. View "Landmark American Insurance Co. v. Deerfield Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

After a subcontractor (Capsco) was held liable, in state court, to a company (Ground Control) with which it had contracted for what the latter had expended for labor and materials on a construction project, the subcontractor's liability insurers (Greenwich) successfully sought a declaration in federal court that it did not owe a duty to indemnify.Applying Alabama law, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Capsco's obligation was to pay the party with whom it contracted for its work; because of the failure of either party to get a certificate of responsibility, any right to recovery in the litigation shifted from contract to quantum meruit; and thus Capsco was obligated to pay the reasonable value of the services Ground Control provided, rather than for property damage or loss of its use. Finally, the court denied Ground Control's motion to vacate the district court's judgment and dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Greenwich Insurance Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

After the jury awarded damages to a sexual assault victim who was under the care of New Horizon, RSUI filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy's "Sexual Abuse or Molestation" exclusion barred coverage for the underlying damage award above Travelers' policy limits. The district court granted summary judgment for New Horizon.The Eighth Circuit held that RSUI, an excess liability insurer that did not control the defense of its insured in the underlying suit, must be afforded an opportunity to prove in a subsequent coverage action that the jury award included damages for uncovered as well as covered claims. If the insurer sustains that burden, the court held that the district court must then allocate the award between covered and uncovered claims. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "RSUI Indemnity Co. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, Inc." on Justia Law

Integrated Technologies, Inc. (ITI) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum). ITI alleged Crum breached its duty to defend ITI against a suit brought by the GOAD Company. The court granted summary judgment to Crum, finding no claim in the GOAD complaint that was potentially covered by the policy’s Errors & Omissions (E&O) Liability Coverage Part. ITI argued on appeal that the trial court misread the allegations in the GOAD complaint and interpreted the policy coverage too narrowly. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Integrated Technologies, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company's motion for a new trial after a jury returned a general verdict in favor of Giyo Miranda and denying State Farm's request for subrogation recovery against Miranda, holding that State Farm was not prejudiced by the court's instructions to the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine.Giyo Miranda was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle driven by Loyd Nielson after Miranda lost control of his vehicle. State Farm, Nielson's insurer, pursued subrogation recovery against Miranda, but the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Miranda. State Farm filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that State Farm failed to establish any prejudice from the circuit court's instructions and that the court was unable to exercise meaningful appellate review on the merits of State Farm's claims. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miranda" on Justia Law