A Progressive policy issued in Oklahoma was targeted to non-duplication of benefits in single vehicle accidents. The Progressive policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries sustained by an insured where liability coverage for the bodily injury was in an amount equal...
Liability
Idaho Supreme Court Authorizes Single Limit Automobile Liability Policies
In Progressive Northwest Insurance Co. v. Lautenschlager, 488 P.3d 509 (Idaho 2021), the Idaho Supreme Court considered whether a “combined single limit” automobile policy satisfied the State’s Financial Responsibility Act. The Court noted that the insurer’s maximum...
California Court of Appeals Weighs in on When The Duty to Attempt Settlement is Triggered
In Planet Bingo, LLC v. Burlington Insurance Co., 62 Cal. App. 4th 44, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 348 (4th Dist. 2021), the Court found that a liability insurance carrier may have a duty to attempt settlement even though there is no settlement demand within policy limits. The...
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT REJECTS REGULAR USE EXCLUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF UIM COVERAGE
In Higgins v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 2021 WL 1115395 (La. March 24, 2021), the plaintiff had been injured in an automobile accident operating an employer owned truck. The employer did not carry UIM coverage on the truck. The tortfeasor was...
WHEN IS A SEXUALLY MOLESTED HOTEL GUEST WITHIN THE CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE HOTEL? By Steven Plitt (Reprinted from Claims Journal, December 23, 2013)
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....
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...
