Reinsurance Law Blog

Reinsurance Law Blog

Tag Archives: evidence

No bad faith for delay in appraisal where there were coverage issues — 10th Cir Oklahoma

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith
This is the second case involving Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm Fire & Casualty.  The first case, involving the appraisal process, is discussed here.  In this case, the policyholder claimed that State Farm acted in bad faith when it delayed the appraisal process because of coverage issues and when it failed to adequately investigate… Continue Reading

Reinsurance is discoverable as insurance agreements in initial disclosures, W.D. Tennessee

Posted in Contractual Liability
In First Horizon Nat’l Corp., v. Houston Cas. Comp., 2016 WL 5869580, 2:15-cv-2235 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2016), the issue was whether the plaintiff insured was entitled to discovery of the defendant insurers’ reinsurance agreements and communications relating to them.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) requires a party to produce with its initial disclosures, “any… Continue Reading

Judgment against policyholder for fraudulent claims affirmed — 10th Circuit, Oklahoma

Posted in Contractual Liability
In Century Surety Co. v. Shayona Investment, Century paid claims submitted by its policyholder, Shayona, and then sued Shayona, arguing the claims were fraudulent.  At trial, the jury found in favor of Century, awarding it both the amount the company paid Shayona under the policy and the sum it spent investigating the claims.  The Tenth… Continue Reading

Claim file discoverable on issue of duty to defend — WD Okla applying Illinois law

Posted in Contractual Liability, Duty to Defend, Insurance Bad Faith
In Federal Insurance Company v. Indeck Power Equipment Company, CIV-15-491-D, 2016 WL 5173402 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2016) the trial court granted a motion to compel discovery of a claim file.  The case had been bifurcated for discovery between duty to defend and bad faith. According to Federal, information regarding the claim file relates to… Continue Reading

Denial of a fairly debatable claim may be unreasonable — 10th Circuit Colorado

Posted in Contractual Liability, Insurance Bad Faith, New Case
In Home Loan Investment Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., St. Paul denied a claim made by Home Loan because Home Loan was not in “possession” of the property insured.  (Home Loan, holder of the mortgage, had decided to help the homeowner sell the property, rather than foreclose on it).  A jury found that… Continue Reading

OK to cross examine expert regarding relationship to insurance industry — Alaska

Posted in New Case
In Ray v. Draeger, the Alaska Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion by not admitting evidence of an expert witness’ (doctor) substantial connection to the insurance industry. Evidence of a witness’s connection to the insurance industry is admissible to show bias if its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.  There… Continue Reading

No bad faith where there was evidence the insured caused the fire and lied to the insurance company, 8th Circuit, Arkansas law

Posted in Contractual Liability, Insurance Bad Faith, Mortgage, New Case
In Jackson v. Allstate, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of Allstate on a breach of contract / bad faith claim.  Jackson’s house was damaged in an arson fire.  Allstate denied the claim based on the intentional acts exclusion and the material misrepresentation exclusion. Allstate’s motion for partial summary judgment was… Continue Reading

The “I” word at trial — automatic mistrial?

Posted in New Case
In Breen v. Gardner, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion for mistrial after the investigating officer testified that he checked drivers licenses and insurance at the scene of a car wreck. The court reasoned that since Oklahoma law requires compulsory insurance, the jury would not be surprised that the officer checked insurance at the scene. Further, there was no evidence as to whether any party had insurance. Thus, the mere mention of insurance by the officer did not warrant a mistrial. In addition, the defendant claimed that the jury was unduly influenced by the word insurance because it awarded $170,000 based on $3,300 in medical bills. But, because the record was insufficient to support this argument, this claim did not warrant a new trial, either.… Continue Reading
Lexblog