Marselis, Anne vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: A100860
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California

Because it did not rely on the statute of limitations in denying the claim, Allstate should be estopped from raising it as an affirmative defense in a bad faith lawsuit filed against it by its policyholder.
Maremont Corporation vs. Chesire, Edward William
Year: 1995
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: 96-0146
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Illinois

Estoppel; inconsistent coverage positions; public policy; clean-up costs as damages.
Loyal Crownover vs. Traveler’s Casualty & Surety
Year: 2002
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 40234
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Nevada

Exclusions in a policy cannot be buried in the boilerplate verbiage of the grant of coverage. In this policy the promise of a defense under these circumstances was clear and invoked the insurer’s duty to defend.
Lockheed Corporation vs. Continental Insurance Company
Year: 2004
Court: 137 Cal. App. 4th 187
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Environmental liability
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • United States

Interpretation of the personal injury liability (“PIL”) coverage provision in comprehensive general liability policies and its application to environmental liability. Long standing positions taken by the insurance industry flatly contracts the current position of the industry that violation or infringement of property or contract rights…
LM Ericsson Telefon AB and Ericsson Inc. vs. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s London
Year: 2008
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 09-0012, 09-0013
Issue:
  • Application as part of policy
State:
  • Texas

This case addresses what it means when an insurance contract incorporates and makes the insured’s policy application a part of the policy of insurance. In 2003, Ericsson Inc. submitted an application for errors and omissions liability insurance, which named its parent company, LM Ericsson Telefon,…
Lititz Mutual Insurance Company vs. Steely
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Middle District
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Reasonable expectations; “absolute” pollution exclusion.
Liristis, Carla et al vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1
Case Number: 1 CA-CV 00-0539 (Maricopa County Superior Court Cause No. CV 99-007046)
Issue:
  • Mold
State:
  • Arizona

The cost of removing mold should be covered if the mold occurred because of a covered loss.
Lebas Fashion Imports of USA vs. ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Year: 1995
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Case Number: B083983
Issue:
  • Advertising Injury
  • Estoppel
State:
  • California
Larsen Oil Company v. Federated Service Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: No. 94-35891
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Oregon
Landry et al. vs. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Year: 2007
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 2007-C-1908
Issue:
  • Katrina
  • Value Policy Law
State:
  • Louisiana

Value Policy Law requires the insurer to make full payment to the insureds regardless that the total loss was a result of a combination of covered and excluded perils under the insurance policy so long as the efficient proximate cause of the loss was a…
Labarre, Ann M. et al vs. Credit Acceptance Corporation
Year: 1999
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
Case Number: 9803097
Issue:
  • RICO
State:
  • Minnesota

Case applying Minnesota law. RICO assists and does not impair the stats in their battles against insurance company fraud. RICO does not conflict with Minnesota’s regulatory system. Policyholders must be allowed to pursue all other non-I insurance common law and statutory remedies.
Payton, Dolores vs. Aetna/US Healthcare
Year: 1989
Court: New York State Supreme Court
Case Number: Index No. 99/100440
Issue:
  • Public service nature of insurance
State:
  • New York

Tutorial for the Court re: Insurance Ethics; duty of good faith and fair dealing; insurance as a product; insurance companies as fiduciaries; public service nature of insurance.
Paul Revere Life Insurance Company vs. Taylor
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. District Court, California Northern District
Case Number: C99-21104JF
Issue:
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • California

Paul Revere must expressly inform its policyholder that it is reserving its right to exercise its discretion in making a disability determination.
Patrick, Patricia v. UNUM
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S098602
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • California

The scope of ERISA preemption should not be extended beyond congress’ intent and should not be allowed to preempt first party insurer bad faith tort claims.
Panasia Estates, Inc. vs. Hudson Insurance Company and UTC Risk Management Services, Inc.
Year: 2008
Court: New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Department 1
Case Number: New York County Clerk’s Index No. 602472/05
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • New York

The Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, should be reversed to the limited extent that it implicitly requires Plaintiff to prove bad faith in order to recover consequential damages.
Padilla Construction Company, Inc., v. Transportation Insurance Company
Year: 2006
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: G036451
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Request for modification of previous decision. The CGL policies at issue potentially cover all damages because of the property damage alleged in the Padilla lawsuit, including property damage that may have occurred prior to inception of the Stage 4 Primary Insurer’s policies. Therefore, the Padilla…
Old United Insurance Company, dba Vantage Casualty Company vs. Buhrman, Don
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2
Case Number: E039995
Issue:
  • Arbitration
  • Tort Damages
State:
  • California

UP argued that the policy at issue contained a compulsory arbitration clause which Insurance Company ignored, forcing insured to incur expenses for litigation as well as loss of time. Under these circumstances, damages for breach of contract are insufficient. Only a tort rationale will provide…
Norman, George vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Year: 2001
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-01-04554-PR
Issue:
  • Auto insurance
State:
  • Arizona

UP argued that the Court should not use admittedly bad facts to justify insurer’s failure to satisfy Arizona’s auto insurance cancellation provisions.