Simon, Lionel vs. Sao Paulo U.S. Holding Company, Inc.
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121933
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

A careful reading of Campbell shows that the Supreme Court did not lay down a single digit ratio for punitive damages and the decision was not intended to deprive states of the ability to exercise their legitimate state interests in deterring and punishing unlawful conduct…
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. vs. City of Desert Hot Springs et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 02-57082, 03-55394
Issue:
  • Exclusions
  • Poor draftsmanship
State:
  • California

Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer’s argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.
Sigelman et al. vs. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D050783
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition for review. Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application. The policy had been in force for seventeen years. Trial court entered judgment in favor of the policyholder. The Appellate Court reversed.
Sher vs. Lafayette Insurance Company et. al.
Year: 2007
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 2007-C-2443 and 2007-C-2441
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Katrina
State:
  • Louisiana

The Shers had an “all risk” policy which extends coverage for all fortuitous losses, unless the policy contains a specific exclusion. A lower court considered a “flood” exclusion in the Lafayette all-risk policy and found it too ambiguous to exclude coverage for Katrina damage to…
Shapiro, Paul vs. Berkshire Life Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 99-7980(L)
Issue:
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Section 349 of General Business Code
State:
  • New York

Section 349 of the General Business Code makes it possible for insurance companies to be compelled to pay the legal costs of policyholders who successfully sue their insurance companies. It is very important that this section of the business code be enforced fully and fairly.…
Serio, Gregory vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 00-7769 & 00-7780
Issue:
  • Mandated insurance; false advertising
State:
  • New York

UP takes position that the State cannot require its citizens to buy a product and then be forced to stand by powerless in the face of the undesirable product claims in the advertising campaigns for the mandated product.
SER Allstate Insurance Co. vs. The Honorable Madden, John T.
Year: 2003
Court: West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
Case Number: 31392
Issue:
  • Attorney Client Privilege
State:
  • West Virginia

When crime/fraud exception can be invoked, insurer cannot shield evidence from insured on grounds of attorney/client privilege. The crime fraud exception is essential in deterring corporate misconduct. The assertion of defenses to an insurance bad faith claim is manifestly sufficient to trigger the exception
Security Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. DiPasquale, Christopher
Year: 2000
Court: New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Case Number: 601780/98
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • New York

Years after selling a policy, Security Mutual entered into a secret agreement with Berkshire Life delegating to Berkshire the right and obligation to handle security mutual claims. It then applied Mass. Law to New York Policyholders without telling them. UP took position that this constituted…
Security Insurance Co of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company
Year: 2001
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Case Number: AC 21960
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Continuing Injury
State:
  • Connecticut

Drafting history sanctions the policyholder’s right to designate which general liability insurance policies are liable to respond fully to a continuing injury. This is inconsistent with any “pro-rata” allocation among insurers.
Scottsdale Insurance Company vs. Essex Insurance Company
Year: 2001
Court: California Superior Court, Orange County
Case Number: 804650
Issue:
  • Condition Precedent
  • Construction Defect
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. In construction defect litigation, the Court should not blindly enforce the condition-precedent language of the special subcontractor’s endorsement. If it does, extra-contractual considerations that are cited for enforcement of the endorsement will be ignored.
Schwartz et al. vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: Docket No. 07-2794-cv (L), 07-2818-cv (CON)
Issue:
  • Insurer must show prejudice when insured settles without insurer's authority
State:
  • New York

The Policyholder should not forfeit coverage under the policy when the policyholder settles a claim without the insurance company’s authority, after the insurance company intentionally placed it interests adverse to those of the policyholder by issuing a reservation of rights and without any showing that…
Salem Suede, Inc. vs Zion Realty Corporation
Year: 1997
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Massachusetts
Case Number: No. 96-13184-JNF, 96-14692-JN
Issue:
  • Insurer's statutory liabilities to third parties
State:
  • Massachusetts

Insurance companies which have allegedly violated their independent duty of good faith and fair dealing to innocent injured third party claimants cannot be allowed to misuse the bankruptcy process to escape potential statutory liability to third parties.
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company vs. Brother International Corporation D/B/A Brother Mall
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 07-3886
Issue:
State:
  • New Jersey
St. Paul Fire & Marine vs. McCormik & Baxter Creosoting Company
Year: 1998
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Oregon

Polluter’s exclusion and use of extrinsic evidence to prove coverage
St. Joe Minerals Corporation vs. Zurich Insurance
Year: 1998
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number: 697526
Issue:
  • Clean up costs as damages
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California
Safeway Insurance Co. vs. Guerrero
Year: 2003
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-04-0146-PR; Court of Appeals No. 1-CA-CV 02- 0661
Issue:
  • Reasonable settlement agreement without the insurer's permission
State:
  • Arizona

When an insurer has failed in some respect to fulfill a legal duty to its insured, the insured can enter into a reasonable settlement agreement without the insurer’s permission.
Safeco Insurance Company vs. Parks
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Case Number: B199364 (consolidated with B200267)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Disclosure Requirement—Under 10 Cal. Code Regs. Section 2695.4(a) mandates that when a claim is made to the insurer, the insurer must “disclose . . . all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions of any insurance policy issued by that insurer that may apply to…
Rush Prudential HMO vs. Moran, Debra
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 00-1021
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

ERISA’S saving clause must defeat a claim that the law is pre-empted because it provides a remedy other than those set forth in ERISA section 502.