Under Pennsylvania law, MVFRL §1739(c), insurance companies are required to offer insureds the option to waive stacked UIM coverage at the time of purchase. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held recently that under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility...
Month: August 2020
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IS KEY FOR APPLICATION TO CRIMINAL-ACTS EXCLUSION
A typical criminal act exclusion states that there is no coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising out of any criminal act. Typically the exclusion applies regardless of whether the insured is actually charged with or convicted of a crime. In Country...
INSURERS CANNOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES IN ROR SITUATIONS IN ALASKA
In a strained decision, the Alaska Supreme Court in Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., 370 P.3d 1101 (2016), answered certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Alaska's statute regarding...
WASHINGTON COURT FURTHER CLARIFIES DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ROLE IN ROR DEFENSE
The Washington Court of Appeals recently found (Arden v. Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S., 193 Wash.App. 731, 373 P.3d 320 (2016)), on first impression, that insurer retained attorneys (defense attorneys) were not automatically prohibited from representing insureds merely...