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 to the Nebraska's minimum financial responsibility limits. In question was Nebraska revised statute 60-310 which stated that no policy of automobile liability insurance was permitted to exclude, limit, reduce, or other otherwise alter policy coverage solely because the injured person was the named insured or a resident of the same household. In this case, the insurance company argued that its household exclusion sublimit should permitted because it did not violate Nebraska statute. The insurance company argued that the statute applied to "automobile liability insurance" which referred to the coverage mandated by the statute and not for amounts of coverage above the minimum statutory limits. The Nebraska Supreme Court invalidated the insurer's "partial" household exclusion after reviewing the legislative history of the statute.
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 policy also excluded "cracking" from the definition of "collapse." Under that policy language the court found that building cracks in a basement's walls of the insured property, which was still standing, would not constitute collapse under the policy.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Ins. Co., 926 F.3d 130 (5th Cir. 2019) found that a lawsuit brought against a flood insurer was untimely when it was not filed in federal court within one year. In this case, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling that a plaintiff/insured was required to file his, her suit in federal court within one year following the denial letter even though the suit had been brought in state court. Failure to file in federal court within one year barred the claim.
In State ex rel. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 575 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018), transfer denied (July 31, 2018), reh'g denied (July 31, 2018), the Missouri court held that in a bad faith lawsuit arising from the failure to settle, the insured was not entitled to discovery communications between the insurance company and its attorney who was retained to advise the insurer in the underlying case.
The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently upheld a district court's ruling that an insurance company's claim administrator's handling of a medical malpractice lawsuit was in conformity with Massachusetts statute regarding reasonable settlement.
In Lamorak Ins. Co. v. Kone, Inc., 2000 Ill. App. (1st) 163398 (Ill. App. May 15, 2018), the Illinois Appellate Court found that in policies containing self-insured retentions, that the SIR was to be treated as a primary policy that had to be exhausted before the insured could tap into the excess layer of coverage.
In Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dahms, 116 Ill. App. (1st) 141392, 2016 WL 2941713 (Ill. App., May 19, 2016) the Court found that a criminal conviction extinguished the insurance company's obligation to defend the insured. The Court held that prior to a criminal conviction the insurance company was required to defend its insured in a mixed complaint, alleging both negligence and criminal activity, because there was the potential for coverage based upon the non-criminal allegations. However, when the insured was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, the criminal acts exclusion became applicable and the duty to defend ceased. Following the conviction, the insurance company could rely upon the jury verdict, which was based on the highest burden of proof known to the American legal system.