Standard insurance policies exclude coverage for sexual misconduct. As an example, with respect to sexual molestations, the sexual misconduct may not constitute an accident triggering coverage under the insuring clause of the policy. See Steven Plitt and Jordan R....
Liability
SMOOTH SAILING FOR A POLLUTION EXCLUSION? (Reprinted from Claims Journal, October 16, 2017)
The question of whether carbon monoxide constitutes a pollutant for purposes of a standard policy pollution exclusion has been mixed among the courts. Whether carbon monoxide constitutes pollution is jurisdiction-specific and depends on whether the jurisdiction...
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOLLOWS THE MINORITY RULE IN ESTABLISHING PRIORITY OF COVERAGE BETWEEN TRUE EXCESS POLICIES AND DE FACTO EXCESS POLICIES IN THE AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CONTEXT
As an issue of first impression, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the minority rule on priority of coverage, holding that after a primary automobile liability policy is exhausted, true excess policies and policies that are excess by virtue of other...
USE OF EMPLOYER’S VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED DID NOT EXCEED SCOPE OF PERMISSIVE USE
Recently the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Anderson 847 F.3d. 1327 (11th Cir. 2017) that an employee did not go beyond the scope of the employer’s permissive use of a company vehicle when the employee...
IDAHO ADOPTS A BREACH OF CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR UIM COVERAGE
In Klein v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 165 Idaho 832, 453 P.3d 266 (Idaho 2019) the Idaho Supreme Court held that the UIM statute of limitations began to run on the date when the insurance company allegedly breached its contract with the insured. The Court found that...
IDAHO SUPREME COURT PERMITS UIM OFFSET
In Wood v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 166 Idaho 43, 454 P.3d 1126 (Idaho 2019) the Court held that where a UIM policy contained an offset provision which reduced the amount of UIM coverage by the liability limit of the at-fault driver, the offset was allowed by...
IN DETERMINING INSURANCE AGENT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE, A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COVERAGE SOUGHT WAS EVEN AVAILABLE
According to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, to assert an insurance agent's liability for negligent failure to procure requested coverage, the customer must establish that the coverage requested was actually available.In Emer's Camper Corral, LLC v. Alderman, 2019 WL...
WASHINGTON COURT PREVENTS DUPLICATION OF LIABILITY AND UIM COVERAGES UNDER SINGLE AUTO POLICY
In Thompson v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., 438 P.3d 53 (Wash. App. 2019) the court held that UIM coverage did not extend to a third party guest passenger in a covered auto under Progressive's policy. The Progressive policy contained an exclusion of the named...
THIRD PARTY WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM ADMINISTRATORS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BAD FAITH LIABILITY UNDER IOWA LAW ACCORDING TO THE IOWA SUPREME COURT
The issue of whether Iowa's common law cause of action for bad faith failure to pay workers compensation claims applied to third party claim administrators (TPAs) in the workers comp context was recently addressed by the Iowa Supreme Court by way of certified question...
IMPORTANT CASE FOR CLAIM ADJUSTER LIABILITY
In Essex Insurance Co. v. William Kramer & Assoc., 331 Conn. 493, 205 A.3d 534 (2019), the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the statute of limitations for claims brought by insurers against TPAs.Under Connecticut law there is a...
