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 »
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist
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 »
Colorado Federal Court Rejects Attorney-Client Privilege for Communications Between Insurer’s Claims Adjuster and In-House Counsel
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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 »