Reinsurance Law Blog : Oklahoma Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Stauffer & Nathan Law Firm

The city of Kinloch, Missouri, had an insurance policy with Scottsdale.  The policy had 4 parts:  four separate “coverage forms” that apply to various types of claims, including “Employment Practices Liability Coverage Form Claims Made Coverage,” “General Liability Coverage Form Occurrence Coverage,” “Law Enforcement Liability Coverage Form Occurrence Coverage,” and “Public Officials Liability Coverage Form Claims Made Coverage.” Each “Coverage Form” has its own definitions, exclusions and declarations page. There was also a general exclusion page which applied to all the coverages.

In the General Liability Coverage form, there was a jail exclusion, but that exclusion did not appear in the general exclusions applicable to all coverages.  Thus, the appellate court found there was a fact issue which precluded summary judgment.  Summary judgment would only be appropriate if there was no insurance (and therefore, no sovereign immunity).

Lashober v. City of Kinloch

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Newmont USA vs. Insurance Co. of North America, the Tenth Circuit affirmed an order requiring arbitration of a reinsurance disagreement. “The arbitration provision in the Reinsurance Agreements encompasses the parties’ dispute concerning the BHP Litigation and neither the Reinsurance Agreements’ expiration nor the Settlement Agreements extinguish arbitrability. Accordingly, the district court did not err in compelling arbitration.” The trial court erred, however, in not applying the postjudgment interest rate in the reinsurance agreement, rather than the federal postjudgment interest rate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Oklahoma law does not permit a tort action to state a claim for damages for a specific amount in excess of $10,000.  Rather, such claims can only request damages in excess of $10,000.  A default cannot be taken for more than the amount requested in the petition. 

In Vannoy v. Earth Biofuels, Inc., the defendant was served through the Secretary of State, but failed to answer.  Apparently, there had been some settlement negotiations.  Plaintiffs got a default judgment against defendant for $1 million.  The trial court refused to vacate the default judgment, and the defendant appealed. 

The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the default, stating that the defendant was required to have notice of the amount claimed before default was entered against it.  The trial court could not rely upon a district court rule says that no notice of default is required if no entry of appearance has been made, since the rule conflicted with the statute requiring notice of the amount claimed.

We believe this is a proper result.  The statutes clearly state that a default cannot be different from the amount claimed in the petition, and also limits the amount that can be claimed in a petition.  A separate notice should be given with the amount claimed before a default may be taken.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks