Recently, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the Texas Supreme Court: "Is the policy-language exception to the eight-corners rule articulated in B. Hall Contracting, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F.Supp.2d 634 (N.D. Tex. 2006),...
Year: 2020
RETROACTIVE PAYMENT CURES FAILURE TO DEFEND
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Choinsky v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau, 390 Wis. 2d 209, 938 N.W.2d 548 (2020), held that an insurance company's retroactive payment of its insured's defense costs satisfied the insurer's duty to defend, thereby insulating the...
DETERMINING AUTOMOBILE ACV
Recently the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Singleton v. Elephant Insurance Co., 953 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2020), held that an insurance policy provision which limited the insurer's liability for a totaled car to "actual cash value" of the car at the time of the...
UNDER MINNESOTA LAW, THE 8TH CIRCUIT FINDS THAT EXCESS INSURERS THAT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE INSURED’S DEFENSE WERE ALLOWED TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF THE JURY’ VERDICT BETWEEN COVERED AND NON-COVERED CLAIMS
In RSUI Indemnity Co. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, Inc., 933 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2019), applying Minnesota law, the 8th Circuit held that when an excess insurer had not participated in the insured's defense, that insurer was allowed the opportunity to allocate the jury's...
MEDICAL NECESSITY IS CONSIDERED BY WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
In Strauss v. Premera Blue Cross, 449 P.3d 640 (Wash. 2019), the Washington Supreme Court considered the concept of medical necessity.In Strauss, the insured plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The insured's doctor recommended proton beam therapy rather than...
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON AUTOMOBILE STACKING
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...
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...
NEBRASKA INVALIDATES HOUSEHOLD EXCLUSION
In Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Freudenburg 304 Nebraska 1015, 938 N.W.2d 92 (2020) the insurance company paid insurance policy in question had a sublimit of coverage in cases involving injuries to named insureds or their resident relatives. The sublimit was equal...