Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Respondents, Angela Lennartson and Katie Foss, were involved in separate car accidents and recovered damages in their respective negligence actions. Subsequently, each respondent was awarded no-fault benefits from their insurer, State Farm, in arbitration proceedings under the Minnesota No-Fault Insurance Act (No-Fault Act). State-Farm moved to vacated the arbitration awards, arguing, inter alia, that collateral estoppel barred the no-fault arbitrations. The district court granted State Farm’s motion to vacate in Lennartson’s case and denied it in Foss’s case. The cases were consolidated on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the decision in favor of Foss and reversed the decision against Lennartson, concluding that neither the No-Fault Act nor collateral estoppel barred the arbitrators’ awards of no-fault benefits to Respondents.The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the No-Fault Act does not bar an insured from recovering no-fault benefits for medical expenses previously recovered in a negligence action; and (2) collateral estoppel does not bar an insured from seeking medical-expense or income-loss benefits in no-fault arbitration recovering damages for the same expenses or losses in a negligence action. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lennartson" on Justia Law

Wolfe filed suit against Universal for a declaration of its rights under an insurance policy, as well as for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. Universal counterclaimed for declaratory judgment in its favor. The district court granted Universal's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, under the plain language of the policy, the umbrella coverage is not available for the injuries alleged in the underlying complaint. Therefore, Universal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it is not under a duty to defend Wolfe from the underlying suit except to the extent such a duty may be provided for in the customer complaint defense provision, and consequently that Universal is not under a duty to indemnify Wolfe should there be an award of damages in the underlying suit. Because Wolfe's claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay rest on the success of its declaratory judgment action, the court need not address them, nor Universal's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wolfe Auto. Grp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Neil and Patricia Whitney asserted that damage to their home and personal property resulting from the spraying within their home of a pesticide known as chlorpyrifos was covered by their homeowners policy. Defendant Vermont Mutual Insurance Company argued that the pollution exclusion in the policy barred the Whitneys’ claim. The superior court granted the Whitneys’ summary judgment motion on the question of coverage, concluding that the exclusion in question was ambiguous, and construing the ambiguous provision in favor of coverage. After review of the policy at issue, the Supreme Court concluded that the property damage to the Whitneys’ home was an excluded risk in the policy and reversed. View "Whitney v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Safeway Insurance issued Tiffany Dukes an automobile insurance policy on her car. Dukes' boyfriend, Robert Hudson, was driving Dukes' car when he was involved in an accident that injured Jeffrey Piggs. Dukes sought coverage for the accident under her policy, but Safeway disputed coverage, claiming the policy was void due to Dukes' failure to list Hudson as a regular, frequent driver on her application for insurance. The trial court granted Safeway partial summary judgment because Dukes and Hudson refused to cooperate with Safeway’s investigation; however, the trial court also found that Safeway was responsible to provide $25,000 of liability coverage, even though Hudson was not listed as a regular, frequent driver on the policy. Following the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Safeway appealed, via petition for interlocutory appeal, to the Court. Finding that the trial court erred in its holding, the Supreme Court reversed and rendered summary judgment in Safeway's favor. View "Safeway Insurance Co. v.Dukes" on Justia Law

William Greenwood owned Antique Wood Company of Mississippi (Greenwood), which was in the business of buying salvage rights to old buildings for the purpose of stripping and selling the buildings’ lumber, bricks, and other materials. After a lawsuit was filed against Greenwood, Greenwood’s insurers, located in Rankin County and Grenada County, denied indemnity coverage. Greenwood sued the insurers in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, alleging breach of contract, conspiracy, and bad faith. Following a grant of a motion for change of venue to the defendants, Greenwood filed the instant petition for interlocutory appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. Greenwood asserted that venue was proper in Warren County. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court. The case was remanded for transfer to the Circuit Court of Warren County. View "Greenwood v. MESA Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellees’ property was insured under a Mobile Homeowners Insurance Policy issued by Appellant. The policy provided that, in the event of a covered loss, Appellant would pay Appellees the “actual cash value” of the damaged parts of the covered property. The policy defined “actual cash value” to mean “total restoration cost less depreciation.” After Appellees’ property incurred a loss covered by the policy, Appellant made a payment to Appellees representing the estimated cash value with a deduction for depreciation. The deduction for depreciation included depreciation of materials and labor. Appellees filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that Appellant violated the law and public policy by depreciating labor costs in calculating the actual cash value of the covered loss. The circuit court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that depreciation of labor in the calculation of actual cash value under any policy that pays actual cash value is against the public policy of the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the practice of depreciating labor in calculating the actual cash value of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy violates Arkansas law. View "Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Goodner" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether the plaintiff-appellant Sandra Vilarrubias Serra was covered under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) and medical payments (medical pay) coverage of the automobile insurance policy issued to Traci Robertson by Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Serra was a foreign exchange student from Spain who was attending her senior year of high school in Pryor. She resided with Robertson in Pryor. As a passenger in the car of a friend, Andrea McNair, she sustained serious injuries when McNair's car collided with Donald Broughton, who was driving a motorcycle. Broughton was killed in the accident. Serra attempted to collect damages for her injuries by filing a claim against Robertson's automobile policy's uninsured motorist and medical payments coverage. State Farm denied coverage to Serra who then filed a lawsuit against the Personal Representative of Donald Broughton, Andrea McNair and State Farm. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court which was granted. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed the trial court. In particular, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether Serra was a "ward" of Robertson for purposes of coverage under the policy. The Court held that she was covered and reversed. View "Serra v. Estate of Broughton" on Justia Law

Great West filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that National is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify an owner-operator of a semi-tractor in a pending state court suit. The court concluded that the owner-operator was an "insured" under the National policy; neither two exclusions in the National policy applied; and the exclusion in the Great West policy's applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Great West, because the underlying negligence claim against the owner-operator was covered under National's policy and excluded under Great West's policy. View "Great West Cas. Co. v. National Cas. Co." on Justia Law

JSI appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Travelers on JSI's payment bond and bad faith claims. The court concluded that Travelers remains liable to JSI on the payment bond, requiring reversal of the summary judgment granted to Travelers on this claim; JSI is entitled to recovery under the bond and summary judgment on liability for the invoiced amount should have been granted in the amount of $36,346.09; the court remanded for the district court to consider the other fees and costs relevant to JSI’s bond claim; and the court vacated the summary judgment on the bad faith claim and remanded for reconsideration. View "JSI Commc'n v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co." on Justia Law

U.S. Metals, Inc. sold ExxonMobil Corp. approximately 350 flanges for use in constructing diesel refinery processing units. In post-installation testing, several flanges leaked, and ExxonMobil decided it was necessary to replace them to avoid the risk of fire and explosion. ExxonMobil sued U.S. Metals for the cost of replacing the flanges and damages for the lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metal settled with ExxonMobil and then claimed indemnification from its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., for the amount paid. Liberty Mutual denied coverage. U.S. Metals sued in federal district court to determine its right to a defense and indemnity under the policy. Four questions were certified to the Supreme Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court concluded that the CGL does not cover most of the damages claimed and answered the circuit court’s questions accordingly. View "U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc." on Justia Law