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...
Insurance Law
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...
CRACKING THE CONCEPT OF COLLAPSE IN A PROPERTY POLICY
In Valls v. Allstate Ins. Co., 919 F.3d 739 (2nd Cir. 2019) the 2nd Circuit construed the concept of collapse narrowly. The homeowner's insurance policy provided coverage for "the entire collapse" of a building structure, that "must be sudden and accidental" but the...
WASHINGTON COURT BRINGS NEW MEANING TO “DECAY”
In a case involving collapse under a property insurance policy, the Washington Court of Appeals in Feenix Parkside, LLC v. Berkley North Pacific, 438 P.3d 597 (Wash. App. 4/8/19) broadly defined the concept of "decay" in an insurance policy's coverage for collapse due...
DRIVE-BY SHOOTING IN MISSOURI NOT COVERED THROUGH UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE
In Patel v. LM General Insurance Co., 922 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2019) (interpreting Missouri law) the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was no UM coverage for a fatal drive-by shooting because the violent act of the shooting arose from the conduct of the...
PUTTING THE BRAKES ON SINGLE OCCURRENCE OUTCOMES IN ASBESTOS CASES
The Illinois Court of Appeals in Continental Casualty Co. v. Hennessy Industries, 2019 Ill. App. (1st) 180183 (April 23, 2019) reversed a trial court's ruling finding that there was only one occurrence arising from the insured's brake equipment asbestos exposure. The...