American Home Assurance Company vs. International Insurance Company & National Casualty Company Year: 1996 Court: New York State Court of Appeals Case Number: 12679/91, 20741/90 Issue: Late notice State: New York
Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company & Paul Cobb v. Ruiz, Joaquin and Paulina Year: 2000 Court: Florida Supreme Court Case Number: SC-01-893 Issue: Claims Handling Rules and RegulationsRight to Obtain a Copy of Insurance Policy State: Florida Policyholders should be able to obtain copies of insurer’s claim files in litigation involving coverage dispute. /duty of good faith and fair dealing
AllAmerica Financial Corporation, SMA Financial Corporation, et al. vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Year: 2006 Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Case Number: SJC-09834 Issue: Excess Insurance State: Massachusetts The Court requested submission of an amicus curiae brief on the issue of “whether an excess insurer, having provided a follow-form excess insurance policy, is bound by the primary insurer’s determination of the primary policy’s applicability in the settlement of a class action suit that…
Aircraft Holdings, LLC vs. XL Specialty Insurance Company Year: 2005 Court: Florida Supreme Court Case Number: SC06-1303 Issue: Attorney Client Privilege State: Florida In a first-party action brought pursuant to Section 624.155, the attorney-client privilege does not bar production of attorney-client communications generated during the claim investigation and underlying coverage action which are relevant to the issue of whether the company evaluated the claim in good faith. Attorney-client…
AICCO, Inc. vs. INA Financial Corporation Year: 2000 Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 5 Case Number: A092096 Issue: Corporate Restructuring - Assignment of Liabilities State: California An insurance company cannot avoid coverage in a class policies simply restructuring itself and assigning its liabilities to another company without first obtaining the consent of its policyholders.
Aerojet-General Corporation vs. Transport Indemnity Insurance Company Year: 1996 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S054501 Issue: Allocation State: California Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. vs. American International Speciality Lines Insurance Company Year: 2009 Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Case Number: 09-11075 Issue: State: Texas This appeal addresses two issues of importance to policyholders across the country: (1) can “property damage” to the insured’s “product” be considered an “accident” or “occurrence” for purposes of coverage under an umbrella liability policy; and (2) do exclusions in an underlying primary policy apply…
Chauvin vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al. Year: 2005 Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District Case Number: Civil Action 05-6454 c/w 06-0177 Issue: Anti-Concurrent Causation ClauseKatrinaValue Policy Law State: Louisiana The Court must reject State Farm’s untenable and unsupported suggested interpretation of the VPL which, in effect, seeks to render the VPL inapplicable to situations where a covered peril and a non-covered peril were each involved in the total loss to a covered property. The…
Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Association v. Associated International Insurance Co. Year: 2000 Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3 Case Number: B137320 Issue: Bad Faith State: California Insurance companies should not be allowed to escape liability simply by hiring an expert. As a matter of law, the insurance company must conduct a fair and thorough investigation or whether or not it has acted in bad faith is a question of fact, and…
Cello-Foil Products, Inc. vs. Michigan Mutual Liability Company Year: 1996 Court: Michigan Supreme Court Case Number: 104107, 105981, 106678 Issue: First manifest-environmental damage State: Michigan In a policy involving environmental damage which actually took place over many years and spanning multiple insurance policy periods, coverage should not be limited only to insurance policies in effect at the time the property damage is discovered or “first manifests.”
Cassim, Fareed vs. Allstate Insurance Company Year: 2003 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S109711 Issue: Attorney's Fees State: California Insureds should have the right to recover attorney’s fees incurred to recover unpaid benefits.
Carter-Wallace, Inc. vs. Admiral Insurance Company Year: 1997 Court: New Jersey Supreme Court Case Number: 44303 Issue: All Sums State: New Jersey Trigger of coverage; all sums; estoppel; joint & severe liability
Carrington, Harold J. vs. Superior Court of CA Year: 2002 Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4 Case Number: 104694 Issue: Long-term care State: California Insurer should not be able to deny long term care policy years later on basis of alleged misrepresentation on application where insured now has Alzheimer’s. (Post claims underwriting)
Callas Enterprises vs. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America Year: 1998 Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit Case Number: 98-3802 Issue: Duty to Defend State: Minnesota Insurers are obligated to pay defense costs for tortuous allegations in a complaint where distinct claims for an intellectual property tort is alleged along with a breach of contract claim.
California Medical Association vs. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California Year: 2001 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S103631 Issue: Bad Faith State: California Health Plans play the same function as health insurers and should be held to the same standards. Policyholders reasonably expect adequate payment by health plans for their healthcare. Because inadequate payment to physicians could compromise the quality of healthcare, underfunding intermediaries and not paying physicians…
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. vs. California Department of Managed Care et al. Year: 2001 Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District Case Number: C041091 Issue: Private right of enforcement State: California Writ of Mandate requiring California Dept. of Managed Health Care to obey and enforce Health & Safety Code section 137.30(h) (Knox-Keene Act). Policyholders should be able to obtain documents from the CDMHC in connection with their appeal of an HMO denial to ensure that policyholder’s…
California Auto Insurance Company v. Hogan Year: 2003 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S120950 Issue: Auto insurance State: California California motor vehicle insurance provides coverage for injuries bearing almost any causal relationship to the vehicle.
Buss, Jerry H. and California Sports, Inc. vs. Superior Court State of California Year: 1996 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S052844 Issue: Duty to Defend State: California Under California law an insurer has a duty to defend the entire case as long as there is a potential for coverage of even one claim. Insurer can request an allocation of costs after defense is complete. Allocation—covered vs. uncovered.
