In Century Communities of Georgia LLC v. Selective Way Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2012 opinion in Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co. does not apply to “coverage defenses” — that is, whether a loss is potentially covered under a policy in the first place. Rather, under Hoover, only certain “policy defenses,” meaning whether a procedural condition of the insurance contract has been fulfilled, may be subject to ... Keep Reading »
No Coverage for Delinquent Payments: Mobile Home Park Operator Cannot Recover for “Expected or Intended” Injuries
On May 1, 2023, in West American Insurance Co. v. Del Ray Properties Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that general liability insurers owed no coverage obligations to a mobile home park operator in connection with delinquent payments of utility bills that jeopardized its residents’ water and garbage services because the underlying claims were for “expected or intended” injuries. Del Ray Properties Inc. is a Washington ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s “Reasonable Expectations” Doctrine
In Hemphill v. Landmark American Insurance Co., issued April 5, 2023, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals outlined limits on an insured’s use of Pennsylvania’s “reasonable expectations” doctrine — the legal theory that purports to provide coverage under a policy based on the “reasonable expectations” of the insured — and found that, among other things, the doctrine does not apply to commercial insureds. The case involved a coverage dispute for an underlying claim by an ... Keep Reading »
Mass. Court Holds Unprovoked Attack Not “Physical Abuse” Within Meaning of Abuse and Molestation Exclusion
In Dorchester Mutual Insurance Co. v. Miville, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts discussed the basis for its reversal of the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dorchester Mutual based on its interpretation of what constitutes “physical abuse” in the context of an abuse and molestation exclusion as it applies to the insured’s unprovoked attack on an individual. The facts regarding the unprovoked attack by the insured, William Brengle, on Leonard ... Keep Reading »
Florida Broadens Use of Proposals for Settlement by Enacting House Bill 837: Proposals for Settlement Can Now Be Served in Civil Insurance Cases Seeking More Than Just Damages
On March 24, 2023, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837, “Civil Remedies,” into law. While other articles have discussed the wide-ranging effects of this new law, this post focuses specifically on how the law alters Florida’s proposal for settlement landscape. Before March 24, proposals for settlement, sometimes referred to as offers of judgment, were exclusively governed by Florida Statutes section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. No ... Keep Reading »
Florida Overhauls Bad Faith Law, Repeals One-Way Attorneys’ Fee Statutes, Adopts Modified Comparative Negligence and Other Tort Reforms
On March 23, 2023, the Florida Legislature passed HB 837, a bill enacting major reforms to Florida tort law. Gov. Ron DeSantis wasted no time, signing the bill into law shortly after the bill was presented to him the next morning. Below is a summary of the many significant changes made to Florida laws, including changes to Florida's bad faith law, the repeal of one-way attorneys’ fee statutes, a reduction of the statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions, ... Keep Reading »
New Jersey Federal Court: Policyholders Must Plead Specific Policy Provisions to Maintain Suits
In Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed that policyholders must allege, under New Jersey law, the specific provisions of the insurance policy in order to state a claim for relief under the insurance contract. In doing so, the court bolstered the growing national judicial trend of restricting policyholder coverage litigation to those involving specific allegations of a carrier’s purported ... Keep Reading »
Known Means Known: Eleventh Circuit Requires Actual Knowledge to Trigger Insured’s Notice Obligation
In Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brown’s Clearing Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama district court’s ruling that the insured was not required to give notice of an underlying lawsuit until the insured had actual knowledge of the suit. Brown’s Clearing, a tree clearing company, hired a subcontractor to clear trees along I-75 in Bartow, Georgia. In July 2018, Courtney Ford allegedly sustained injuries when a tree limb pierced the ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Finds Notice-of-Impairment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Warehouse Fire
In Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fun F/X II, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered whether loss from a warehouse fire was excluded from coverage because of the insureds' failure to notify the insurer of a known impairment to the building’s fire protection systems prior to the fire. The defendants were owners of a costume and theatrical supply retailer that stored inventory in a warehouse insured by the plaintiff, Frankenmuth Mutual ... Keep Reading »
Florida Appellate Court Affirms Work Product Protection for Insurer’s Claim File
In Family Security Insurance Co. v. Stein, No. 4D22-1468 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 8, 2023), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal confirmed that, in a coverage action where the issue of coverage is in dispute, an insurer’s claim file and claim investigation materials are protected by the work product privilege. Family Security was a breach of contract action filed by two homeowners seeking homeowners insurance coverage for damage to their home. The insurer denied ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- …
- 46
- Next Page »