Reinsurance Law Blog

Reinsurance Law Blog

Tag Archives: policy

Homeowners policy did not cover privacy, negligence claims where there was no physical injury to person or property — 10th Circuit, Oklahoma law

Posted in Contractual Liability, Duty to Defend
In State Farm Fire v. Dawson, Dawson was sued for negligence and privacy violations after receiving inappropriate photos of an under aged student. Dawson wanted State Farm to pay his defense and any judgment.  But State Farm claimed there was no physical injury to tangible property and no bodily injury such that the policy did… Continue Reading

Misrepresentations in insurance application let insurer off the hook for fatal building collapse — Pennsylvania

Posted in Contractual Liability
In Berkely Assurance Company vs Campbell, Campbell was hired to demolish a building in Philadelphia.  During the demolition, an unbraced wall fell onto an adjacent Salvation Army store killing and injuring employees and customers. Berkely issued a policy to Campbell, but claimed it was void because of misrepresentations in the application and because Campbell failed… Continue Reading

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

Construction defect is not an “occurrence” or “accident” that triggers covered “property damage” within the meaning of a CGL policy – 7th Circuit, Illinois

Posted in Contractual Liability, Duty to Defend
In  Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro N. Condo. Ass’n., Allied’s policyholder insured improperly installed windows on Metro’s property. Metro sued the insured for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Metro and the insured entered into a settlement agreement assigning Metro the right to the insured’s insurance proceeds. Allied sought a declaratory… Continue Reading

Agent’s negligent failure to list co-owners of life insurance policy — 8th Circuit, Minnesota

Posted in Contractual Liability, New Case
In Carlson v. Midwest Professional Planners, the Carlsons sued an insurance agent for negligently failing to list plaintiffs as co-owners of a life insurance policy.  The insured had changed beneficiaries to the policy from the Plaintiffs shortly before he died.  The Carlsons claimed if they had been properly named as co-owners, they could not have… 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

Cancellation notice is not cancellation — 10th Circuit, Oklahoma (unpublished)

Posted in Contractual Liability, New Case
In Self v. Travelers, the Self’s insured their son’s truck on May 5 for 6 months.  On June 25, the insurance company sent the Selfs a notice of cancellation, which said the policy was being cancelled because the Selfs did not respond to the insurance company’s request for an interview to verify the policy information. … Continue Reading

Anti-concurrent causation — roof collapse 10th Circuit, Colorado

Posted in Contractual Liability, Insurance Bad Faith, New Case
In Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Gallegos made a claim against Safeco when his roof collapsed due to snow and ice.  Safeco denied the claim, saying the collapse was caused, at least in part, by improper maintenance and construction. Summary judgment to Safeco was affirmed.  It was undisputed that improper maintenance contributed to… Continue Reading

Anti-stacking UM policy struck down — again! Missouri law

Posted in New Case
In Nationwide v. Dugger, Tanya Dugger’s daughter was killed when the vehicle she was riding in was struck by a train.  Tanya Dugger had an automobile policy with Nationwide that insured two vehicles. The Policy contained anti-stacking language purporting to limit Tanya to a single payment of $25,000 for her UM coverage. The trial court… Continue Reading

Excess Insurer Had No Duty to Initiate Settlement Negotiations with Third-Party Claimant 10th Circuit , Oklahoma

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith, New Case, Uncategorized
Under Oklahoma law, a primary insurer owes its insured a duty to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant if the insured’s liability to the claimant is clear and the insured likely will be held liable for more than its insurance will cover. Here the insured, SRM, Inc., seeks to extend this obligation to its… Continue Reading

$20M bad faith verdict overturned because of bad jury instructions -Oklahoma

Posted in Contractual Liability, Insurance Bad Faith, New Case
In Aduddell Lincoln Plaza Hotel v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2015 OK CIV APP 34; a judgment of nearly $20 million (for actual damages, bad faith damages, punitive damages, and interest) was reversed because of bad jury instructions. Lloyds offered to pay $50,000 on a $600,000 claim, after deducting for old damage and depreciation. Jury… Continue Reading

Governmental Tort Claims Act, Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Set Off — Okla law

Posted in Contractual Liability, immunity, New Case, Vehicle
In Mariani v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State University, 2015 OK 1, the issue was whether the governmental tortfeasor was entitled to a set off for the uninsured motorist coverage paid by the injured party’s insurer. Under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), the state’s liability is limited to a certain dollar amount– in this… Continue Reading

Oklahoma law limited damages for uninsured motorists is unconstitutional

Posted in New Case, Vehicle
As part of tort reform, Oklahoma passed a law that precluded uninsured motorists from recovering damages for pain and suffering and other non-economic damages.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down this law as a special law in Montgomery v. Potter.  The court states: Section 7-116 creates an impermissible special class by restricting damages in civil… Continue Reading