In Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Gant, 957 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2020) (interpreting Kansas law), the 10th Circuit held that a liability insurance company is not obligated to investigate the availability of other insurance to fund a settlement for excess...
Insurance Law
MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSUREDS ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOCATE SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN COVERED AND NONCOVERED CLAIMS
Recently, the Court of Appeals in King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Constr. LLC, 937 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), review granted (Feb. 26, 2020) held that when an insured and a claimant enter into a Miller-Shugart agreement, the parties must allocate...
CHILD ABUSE IN SCHOOL BUS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO UM CLAIM
Recently the Supreme Court of Virginia in Corriveau v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 836 S.E.2d 694 (Va. 2019) ruled that child abuse inflicted by a bus driver and a bus driver's aide were not covered by the victim's uninsured motorist coverage. The Court...
PROPERTY INSURERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEPRECIATE LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE IN MISSISSIPPI
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Mitchell v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 954 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2020), applying Mississippi law, held that State Farm's definition of actual cash value was ambiguous and therefore had to be interpreted in the...
MARYLAND ADOPTS PRO-RATA ALLOCATION ON A TIME ON RISK BASIS
In Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 468 Md. 92, 226 A.3d 444 (2020), the Maryland Supreme Court held that Maryland law did not permit "all sums" allocation of liability policies in continuous and progressive injury cases. The Court held that for continuous and...
CLAIM HANDLERS OWE DIRECT DUTY UNDER TEXAS LAW TO THE INSURER
In an extensive ruling, a Texas Court of Appeals in Kenyon v. Elephant Ins. Co., LLC, No. 04-18-00131-CV, 2020 WL 1540392 (Tex. App. Apr. 1, 2020), held, on first impression, that an insurer's claim handlers owed the insured a direct duty to prevent physical harm to a...
DEPRECIATING LABOR COSTS IN DETERMINING ACV IN NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Supreme Court in Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 373 N.C. 292, 838 S.E.2d 454 (2020), held that a property insurer was allowed to depreciate the cost of labor in calculating ACV under a policy. In this case, a storm caused damage to the...
TEXAS SUPREME COURT REJECTS THE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IN DECIDING THE DUTY TO DEFEND BY UPHOLDING A STRICT EIGHT-CORNERS RULE
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),...
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...