In Film Allman, LLC v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company, Inc., 2:14-cv-7069-ODW, (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2017), a California district court granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer of a production company. The court found no breach and no extra-contractual damages were warranted because the insurer paid full policy limits to settle the claims. Midnight Rider The insurance coverage dispute arose after production company Film Allman, LLC was sued as a ... Keep Reading »
Extra-contractual Liability
Eleventh Circuit Deems Voluntary Dismissal of a Coverage Action Sufficient to Award Attorneys’ Fees to a Policyholder as the Prevailing Party
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that should serve as a warning to insurers to be sure to resolve all issues before dismissing a coverage action, particularly when involved in the settlement of an underlying suit. A Tale of Two Cases In W&J Group Enterprises, Inc. v. Houston Specialty Ins. Co., No. 16-15625 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2017), the insurance carrier filed a declaratory action against its policyholder in the Middle ... Keep Reading »
Oregon Supreme Court Revives Century-Old Statute to Award Attorney’s Fees to Policyholder
The general rule regarding a party’s responsibility for legal fees in U.S. courts, known as the “American Rule,” provides that, barring a contrary contractual obligation or statute, each party is responsible for its own legal fees, regardless of a dispute’s outcome. Although statutory exceptions to this rule are many, the overwhelming majority of those exceptions require that the person receiving a fee award at least be the prevailing party. Not so in Oregon — or at ... Keep Reading »
Florida Appellate Court Rejects Jury’s Bad Faith Verdict
It feels like a black swan event: last month, in GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Harvey, No. 4D15-2724 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2017), a Florida appellate panel unanimously overturned a jury verdict, on the ground that the plaintiff’s bad faith claim was insufficient as a matter of law. A dissection of this rara avis can yield some insight into the limits of judicial tolerance for claims against insurers. The Fatal Accident On August 8, 2006, James Harvey and John Potts ... Keep Reading »
There’s A Problem With Your Reservation: Citing Reservation of Rights, Mississippi Court Nullifies “Defense Within Limits” Provision
When liability insurers have reasonable questions about coverage, courts traditionally encourage them to defend their insureds, subject to a reservation of rights. E.g., Drawdy v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 586 S.E.2d 228 (Ga. 2003) (“[b]y acting in this manner, the insurer eliminates any detriment to the insured …”). But the decision to reserve can have serious, negative consequences for the insurer. In some states, a reservation is deemed to create a conflict between ... Keep Reading »
Accidentally On Purpose: Washington Court Finds Coverage For Contempt Of Court Based On “Misunderstanding”
Professional liability policies cover claims based on the insured’s alleged negligent acts, errors or omissions, and not claims for “sanctions or penalties” for “willful” professional misconduct. But the insurer’s duty to defend is very broad. Recently, a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding filed a motion against the attorney for a judgment creditor, seeking to have her held in civil contempt for an allegedly “willful” violation of a discharge injunction. In Gauthier v. ... Keep Reading »
Florida’s Immune System: No First-Party Bad Faith Claims Against The State-Created Property Insurer
Earlier this month, in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Perdido Sun Condominium Association, Inc., No. SC14-185 (Fla. May 14, 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida held that the immunity from suit granted to Citizens under its enabling statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.351(6), applies to the cause of action for an insurer's first-party bad faith that was created by a different statute, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b). Because Florida does not recognize a common law cause of action ... Keep Reading »
Change is in the Air: New Jersey Justices Hold Their Noses While Siding with Insurer in UM Disputes
On February 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued separate opinions in two first-party, uninsured motorist cases against the same auto insurer. Plaintiffs in both cases alleged that the insurer had acted in bad faith by forcing the insured to trial after losing an arbitration. The insurer won both cases, on the ground that its position each time had been "fairly debatable" as a matter of law. But New Jersey’s high court also suggested, in both cases, that ... Keep Reading »
“At-Issue” Waiver: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over
When a claim goes south, the insured often pursues a bad faith claim. But even when the bad faith claim settles, that doesn't always mean the litigation is over. And that means it's still necessary to be vigilant about preserving the confidentiality of privileged communications. One way that insurers often waive the privilege inadvertently is by making statements during discovery that put the advice of counsel "at issue." Last month, in Seneca Insurance Co. v. Western ... Keep Reading »
Et tu, Buddy?: When Excess Insurers Sue for Bad Faith
Insurers don’t, as a rule, like bad faith suits. But life can play funny tricks—as when a judgment against an insured breaches a layer of excess coverage, because the primary carrier failed to settle within its policy limits. In those circumstances, a number of jurisdictions hold that the excess carrier is subrogated to the insured’s right to sue the primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co., 76 Cal App. 3d 1031 ... Keep Reading »