An insured had a commercial vehicle policy with $1M limits. The insured selected UM limits of $100,000. Because there was no separate rejection of UM limits equal to the liability limits as required under New Mexico law, the court found the "rejection" ineffective. This resulted in the UM limits being equal to the liability limits as a matter of law.
In Union Insurance v. Mendoza, Mendoza was injured by breathing in ammonia fumes. Ammonia fertilizer was being sprayed onto farm land next to where Mendoza was working on the highway, injuring her. Summary judgment to the insurer was affirmed. The claim was excluded under the pollution exclusion clause, which was not ambiguous. Recent Kansas case law confirmed that the pollution exclusion was not ambiguous and therefore enforceable. As a result, there was no coverage for Mendoza's claims and summary judgment was proper.
Doug Hambelton hit a deer with his tractor-trailer truck and his transmission failed about two weeks later. Canal, his insurer, refused to pay for the transmission repair, contending it was a mechanical failure. Hambelton sued Canal for breach of contract and bad faith. A jury found and awarded in favor of Hambelton on both claims, awarding actual damages of $5,366.98, plus $117,555.00 for bad faith, punitive damages of $75,000.00, and $72,982.50 in attorneys’ fees. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
First it was determined that the trial court correctly applied Oklahoma law. Although the significant contacts were fairly evenly split, the trial court was correct in not applying Missouri law because while Missouri’s prohibition against bad faith and extracontractual damages protects Missouri insurers, Canal was not a Missouri insurance company. Because the contractual relationship, which gave rise to the duty of good faith Oklahoma law seeks to protect, came into existence in Oklahoma, the district court correctly held that applying Oklahoma law protects Oklahoma’s policy interest without violating the policy of Missouri or South Carolina.
Canal’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict was waived because Canal failed to file a Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict. This failure forecloses a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See, Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404 (2006). Canal’s claims that the bad-faith and punitive damage awards were excessive and unconstitutional were also waived. Canal neither moved for a new trial after the jury verdict nor filed a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. It cannot do so for the first time on appeal. See Hardeman v. City of Albuquerque, 377 F.3d 1106, 1122 (10th Cir. 2004). In a separate order, the award of attorneys fees was also affirmed.
Attorneys fees opinion
Hambelton v. Canal Insurance 2
Continue Reading...
Decedent was killed on the job in a traffic accident. His estate received workers comp death benefits. His estate also sued the parties involved in the accident for wrongful death. The workers comp insurer sought to intervene in the tort action, claiming a right to be reimbursed for the payments it made under the workers comp law.
HELD:
The Oklahoma State Legislature has not included the insurance company the rights to subrogation for monies paid to an employee's beneficiaries and thus, the workers comp insurance company has no standing to intervene in the case. The statutory language is neither ambiguous nor uncertain. The workers comp insurer may not stand in the shoes of the Employer and since the Employer did not pay any benefits to the employee's beneficiaries, the Employer has no right to seek reimbursement for benefits paid by the workers comp insurer.
McBride v. Grand Island Express, 2010 OK 93
In Dodson v. National Union Fire, Dodson, which salvaged aircraft, had an insurance policy with National Union which only provided for Products Completed Operations Coverage (PCO). The PCO did not have its own coverage section. Rather, PCO coverage was provided in the definition section of the policy, Section V. This was troublesome to the court since the care, custody and control exclusion relied upon by National Union to decline coverage was in Section I, Coverage A. Since there was nothing which clearly stated that the exclusions set forth in Coverage A would apply to the PCO coverage, however, the policy was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage.
Continue Reading...
Enter keywords:
