Steven Plitt, Expert Witness Steven Plitt, Expert Witness
Insurance Bad Faith Claim Handling Expert Serving Clients Nationwide

May 2017 Archives

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT AUTOMOBILE POLICY'S COLLISION COVERAGE DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY FOR THE CAR'S LOST MARKET VALUE

In Baldwin v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah, 204 Cal.Rptr 3d 433 (1st Dist. 2016), the Court held that an automobile insurer had no obligation to pay the "pre-accident value" of the insured vehicle under the policy's collision coverage provision which gave the insurer the option to repair the vehicle and which expressly excluded diminution in value damages. The Court held that the insurer did not breach the policy's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not compensating its insured for the diminished value of the vehicle.

THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ENFORCE UIM POLICY ANTI-STACKING PROVISIONS

The Idaho Supreme Court in Gearhart v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 160 Idaho 666, 378 P.3d 454 (Idaho 2016), found that a UIM anti-stacking provision was ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable. In Gearhart, the Court considered a UIM policy's anti-stacking clause which stated that the maximum limit of liability under all of the policies that were issued was the highest applicable limit under any one policy. However, the Court found this clause to be ambiguous and, therefore, did not preclude a passenger from recovering the total cumulative UIM benefits under each policy issued to the insured's parents. The majority opinion concluded that the anti-stacking clause in question was ambiguous because it could be construed to "mean that one aggregates all of the applicable policy limits and then the total of the limits constitutes the highest limit of any one policy." The dissent characterized the majority's conclusion as "nonsensical." The dissent would have found the anti-stacking clause to be neither ambiguous nor complex.

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERS EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT IN EXCESS UM LIABILITY POLICIES UNDER GEORGIA LAW. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE POLICY EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENTS

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Coker v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 825 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2016) (applying Georgia law) held that UM policy exhaustion requirements were enforceable under Georgia law. The Court found that Georgia's UM statute did not transform excess policies into primary policies.

IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON INSUREDS DO NOT WAIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES WHEN THEY SEEK THE COURT'S APPROVAL OF A COVENANT JUDGMENT SETTLEMENT WHICH ASSIGNS TO THE ADVERSE PARTY THE INSURED'S BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST THE INSURER

In Steel v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 195 Wash.App. 811, 381 P.3d 111 (Wash. App. 2016), the Washington Court of Appeals held that insurance companies do not waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection when their insured enters into a covenant judgment settlement that is subject to judicial determination as to reasonableness. In Steel, a day care center's employee was convicted of child rape and child molestation of two children at the day care center. At the time, the defendants were insured under a Philadelphia Indemnity policy providing $1M in coverage. Plaintiffs offered to settle their claims for $4M which was rejected by Philadelphia. Shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, the insureds entered into a $25M covenant judgment settlement with the plaintiffs, receiving a covenant not to execute in return, for an assignment of the insureds' bad faith claims against Philadelphia.

FindLaw Network

Contact Steven Plitt

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Phone: 602-322-4038