In Neptune v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed whether uninsured motorist (UM) coverage applied in an accident where there was no evidence of a “hit” from the uninsured vehicle. In April 2019, Maria Neptune worked as a driver for Lyft, a rideshare company. She accepted a request to provide a ride from Houston, Texas, to nearby Cypress, Texas. When Neptune arrived in her SUV at the pick-up location, a young man entered ... Keep Reading »
Automobile
New California Time-Limited Demand Statute for Insurance Claims Effective Now
In an effort to promote early resolution of claims and remove ambiguity in bad faith litigation, the California legislature recently passed Senate Bill 1155. Effective January 1, 2023, the bill creates California Code of Civil Procedure Section 999 et seq., a set of rules detailing form requirements for time-limited demands, demand delivery procedures, and steps needed to accept or deny the demand. The scope of Section 999 is limited to demands brought prior to any suit ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Leans on Well-Established Contractual Interpretation Doctrine to Preclude Coverage Under General Liability Policy
To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a case “which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment” makes bad law. In the face of exceptionally tragic circumstances, however, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals resisted the urge to let its emotions carry the day. In Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Discovering Me Academy LLC, the court instead adhered to well-established principles of Texas contract law to preclude coverage under a policy issued by ... Keep Reading »
Florida’s “Totality of Circumstances” Bad Faith Analysis Should Consider Claimant’s Actions as a “Factor” but Not a “Focus”
A recent decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals limits the Florida Supreme Court’s approach to evaluating whether an insurer committed bad faith in handling a claim against its insured. In Harvey v. Geico General Insurance Co., the Florida Supreme Court (in a 4–3 decision) stated, four times, that “the focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured.” In the ... Keep Reading »
California Federal Court Awards Insurer Reimbursement of Settlement Funds Paid on Insureds’ Behalf After Finding Insurer Has No Duty to Indemnify in Wrongful Death Suit Involving Wrecked Ferrari
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled in United Specialty Insurance Co. v. Bani Auto Group Inc. that United Specialty Insurance Co. did not have a duty to indemnify its insureds in connection with litigation brought by the widow of a man killed while driving a car rented to him by the insureds, based on certain exclusions contained in an auto dealer policy issued by United, and awarded reimbursement of settlement funds advanced by ... Keep Reading »
PSA: Second Circuit Issues Reminder of the Consequences for Lack of Specificity in Disclaimers of Coverage for Personal Injury Claims Under New York Law
We have previously discussed the requirements imposed on insurers by New York law to inform insureds seeking coverage for death or bodily injury to describe any disclaimer of coverage “with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated.” In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Yeshivat Beth Hillel of Krasna Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently illustrated the consequences of failing to disclaim with such ... Keep Reading »
Minnesota Supreme Court’s First Opinion on the State’s Bad Faith Statute
The Minnesota Supreme Court in the matter of Alison Joel Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company, 946 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. 2020) opined for the first time on the state’s bad faith statute (Minn. Stat. § 604.18) and weighed in on the interpretation of the two prongs contained within the statute. The statute provides the following two prongs that must be determined for a court to award bad faith damages to an insured against the insurer: the absence of a ... Keep Reading »
Florida Court Holds Carrier’s Basis for Botched $149K Ferrari Payment Defied “Common Sense”
A familiar dispute between a carrier and a third party involves the third party’s attacking the language of the insurance contract and arguing in favor of an interpretation not reflected by the plain meaning of the text. But in a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, World Finance Group LLC v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., it was the third-party lienholder that benefitted from the “plain meaning” of the text. This case stemmed from a March 2014 accident ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Rejects Insurer-Defended Policyholder’s Bid to Expand Florida’s Bad Faith “Excess Judgment Rule” to Include Collusive Settlements Concocted Without Insurer’s Consent
In Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., No. 18-12067 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Co., ruling that a consent judgment does not constitute an excess verdict, which is an essential element of a Florida bad faith claim. This appeal arose from an April 2014 underlying automobile accident in which David Cawthorn and Bradley ... Keep Reading »
Florida Court Holds It Was “Miscarriage of Justice” to Deny Insurer Award of Appellate Fees
Florida's offer of judgment statute, Florida Statutes section 768.79, is a common technique for any litigator who wants to place additional risk on the plaintiff. The statute provides that if a defendant in a civil suit files an offer of judgment that is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the date of filing if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the ... Keep Reading »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »