PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

Fifth Circuit Holds No Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Lyft Driver Following Crash

September 15, 2023 by Matthew Lewis

car with bullet holes

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 »

Minnesota Supreme Court’s First Opinion on the State’s Bad Faith Statute

October 2, 2020 by J. Kent Crocker

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 »

Colorado Federal Court Rejects Attorney-Client Privilege for Communications Between Insurer’s Claims Adjuster and In-House Counsel

July 23, 2019 by Christina Gallo

Secret Whisper Privacy

In Olsen v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 1:18-cv-01665, 2019 WL 2502201 (D. Colo. June 17, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine protected documents containing communications between the insurer's claims adjuster and its in-house counsel, where such documents did not contain legal advice or the insurer's strategy for defending against the civil action. In this case, the ... Keep Reading »

Another Sentinel Strike: California District Court Dismisses Financial Elder Abuse and Fraud Claims

November 2, 2018 by Carlton Fields

The Hartford affiliate Sentinel Insurance Company continued its successful campaign to limit dubious claims by securing another favorable decision – this time in California in the rapidly developing area of financial elder abuse law in Davis v. Sentinel Insurance Co., No. 17-CV-1845 W (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018). This case centered on a coverage dispute arising out of James and Cecelia Davis’ uninsured motorist (UM)/underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies “Permanency” Requirement under Florida Bad Faith Statute

December 9, 2016 by Colton Peterson

In Cadle v. GEICO Ins. Co., Case No. 15-11283 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that GEICO had not acted in bad faith when it failed to settle a claim after the insured did not provide any evidence of permanency during the cure period as is required by Florida law. With A Friend Like This… On July 2007, Catherine Cadle was rear-ended by Derek Friend, an underinsured motorist driving down I-95. Cadle had previously purchased insurance providing ... Keep Reading »

Not Seeing Double: In Reversal, New York Court Holds That Third-Party Liability Payments May Not Offset UIM Benefits

July 8, 2016 by Gabriella Paglieri

In New York, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage “does not function … to fully compensate … insureds for their injuries.” Weiss v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 98 A.D.3d 1107, 951 N.Y.S.2d 191 (2d Dep’t 2012). UIM coverage is subject to limits, and those limits are generally reduced by the amount of coverage available to the person who caused the injury. Standard UIM endorsements also provide that coverage “shall not duplicate” payments the insured receives from ... Keep Reading »

Step-Up, Insurer! Your Step-Down Provision Is Not Triggered

June 10, 2016 by Nora Valenza-Frost

“Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” -- Frank Pierson Where an automobile policy covers someone other than the named insured, a “step-down” provision may subject the amount of available coverage to the limit on “similar coverage” that is imposed by the injured person’s own policy. Sometimes, however, that second policy does not cover a particular risk at all. Last month, in Rivera v. McCray, No. A-2337-14T1 (N.J. App. Div. May 2, 2016), a New Jersey appellate ... Keep Reading »

Colorado Takes A Stand Against Unauthorized Settlements

May 20, 2016 by Brooke L. French and Robert D. Helfand

The “notice-prejudice” rule gives a pass to policyholders who breach the notice or cooperation provisions of their policies, if the breach is found not to have prejudiced the insurer. Sometimes, the late notice does not arrive until after the policyholder has settled an underlying claim; even in those cases—and even where the policy contains a “no voluntary payments” or a “consent-to-settle” clause—dozens of cases have found that the notice-prejudice rule applies. Last ... Keep Reading »

Too Little, Too Late: The Harsh Bright Line of Suit Limitation Provisions

February 5, 2016 by Zachary D. Ludens

Approximately twenty percent of Americans have been classified as chronic procrastinators, which means one in five policyholders faces a potential problem when suing for coverage.  While the statute of limitations for breach of contract varies by state, it is typically three years or more.  However, insurance policies often impose their own, contractual suit limitations, and it is often only a year or two.  When and how these provisions operate to bar coverage varies ... Keep Reading »

Change is in the Air: New Jersey Justices Hold Their Noses While Siding with Insurer in UM Disputes

March 10, 2015 by Matthew Burrows

Picture of Exxon Oil Refinery in New Jersey

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 »

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing