FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Insurance Law

Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Contracts, Insurance Law, Securities Law) A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., ERISA, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.

Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.

Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Insurance Law) In an appeal from the district court's order granting respondent's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion based on newly discovered evidence that an arbitrator who had resigned was, in fact, able to rejoin the arbitration panel prior to the district court's decision on whether to convene a new panel or order a replacement arbitrator, the order is affirmed where: 1) the rule articulated in Marine Products Export Corp. v. M.T. Globe Galaxy, 977 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1992) 150 that, absent "special circumstances," if a vacancy arises on an arbitral panel due to the death of an arbitrator prior to the rendering of an award, a new panel should be convened 150 does not apply to a vacancy occasioned by a resignation; and 2) in the instant case, the district court's decision either to reappoint the arbitrator who had resigned, or, in the alternative, to direct petitioner to appoint a replacement was proper pursuant to 9 U.S.C. section 5.

RLI Ins. Co. v. All Star Transp., Inc.

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Contracts, Insurance Law, Transportation) In an interpleader action by an insurance company to determine its obligations to pay truckers hired by its bankrupt insured under a surety bond, summary judgment for plaintiff-insurer is affirmed where Form BMC 84, which governed such bonds, plainly stated that the face value of the bond was the sum of $10,000 for all claims combined.

Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law, Professional Malpractice) District court's order issuing a stay of federal proceedings in an insurer's request for declaratory judgment, claiming that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor due to his disappearance in more than 350 medical malpractice claims, is reversed and remanded as it was an abuse of discretion to stay this action.

Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In a dispute over a homeowner's insurance coverage, arising from plaintiff's suit against a mother and her son for being sexually molested by the son in their home, the court rules that an exclusion of coverage for the intentional acts of "an insured," read in conjunction with a severability or "separate insurance" clause like the one at issue in this case, creates an ambiguity which must be construed in favor of coverage that a lay policyholder would reasonably expect. Here, a lay insured would reasonably anticipate that under a policy containing such a clause, each insured's coverage would be analyzed separately, so that the intentional act of one insured would not, in and of itself, bar liability coverage of another insured for the latter's independent act that did not come within the terms of the exclusion. Therefore, the homeowner was not precluded form coverage for any personal role she played in her son's molestations of plaintiff merely because the son's conduct fell within the exclusion for intentional acts.

Hervey v. Mercury Cas. Co.

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Class Actions, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In plaintiff's suit against her automobile insurance carrier, alleging that the insurer breached the policy by offsetting uninsured motorist payments due her for injuries suffered in an automobile accident with the amount the insurer paid plaintiff under the medical expense coverage in the same policy for the same accident, the trial court properly sustained without leave to amend the insurer's demurrer to plaintiff's class action complaint because the policy was not reasonably susceptible to plaintiff's interpretation of it.

Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Banking Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government Law, Insurance Law, International Law, Judgment Enforcement) In proceedings involving efforts to collect on a default judgment against Iran and in favor of the family of an individual severely injured in a 1996 suicide bombing in Jerusalem, an order granting plaintiff's motion for appointment of receiver to attach defendant's property in satisfaction of the prior judgment is affirmed where: 1) section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act provided courts with subject matter jurisdiction over post-judgment execution and attachment proceedings against property held in the hands of an instrumentality of the judgment-debtor, even if the instrumentality was not itself named in the judgment; 2) Congress, by virtue of providing subject matter jurisdiction over execution and attachment proceedings based in part on the Office of Foreign Asset Control's determination of what assets were blocked, did not unconstitutionally delegate its authority to the Executive Branch; and 3) there was no conflict between the TRIA and the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.

Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Contracts, Insurance Law) In an insured's petition for a writ of mandate challenging a pretrial order that decided three stipulated legal questions concerning the scope of the duty to defend under a liability insurance policy, the petition is granted where: 1) the umbrella coverage was primary coverage and the existence of a duty to defend with respect to that coverage did not depend on the exhaustion of any underlying insurance; 2) plaintiff need not show that the claims were actually covered under the policy in order to establish a duty to defend with respect to the primary coverage provided by the umbrella provision, but need only show a potential for coverage; and 3) a "retained limit" or "self-insured retention" provision in a policy providing primary coverage relieves the insurer of the duty to provide an immediate "first dollar" defense only if the policy expressly so provides, and as such, plaintiff need not have incurred a liability in excess of the retained limit described in the policy before the insurer's duty to defend could arise.

State Farm Lloyds v. Page

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Tex., Contracts, Insurance Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In a homeowner's suit against her insurer, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded as, when a plumbing leak results in mold contamination, the policy covers mold damage to personal property but not to the dwelling under the Texas Standard Homeowner's Policy Form B.

Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's court vacating an arbitral award on the ground of its excessive size and vacating a punitive damages award on the additional ground that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to enter it after the panel had entered its compensatory award, the order is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that the size of the arbitration awards demonstrated manifest disregard of the law; 2) the fact that the majority of the arbitrators may have made a mistake in citing a benefit that plaintiff had not purchased did not establish irrationality of its ultimate conclusion that defendant breached its contract; 3) nothing in plaintiff's policy expressly withdrew determination of procedural issues from the panel; and 4) defendant failed to demonstrate either evident partiality or evident corruption in the arbitrators.

People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Asset Forfeiture, Criminal Law & Procedure, Insurance Law) In a motion to set aside a forfeiture and exonerate a bond, court of appeals' reversal of trial court's denial is reversed as a motion for relief from forfeiture of bail must be made within 180 days of forfeiture, unless the time is extended as the governing statute permits, even when an absconding defendant is arrested or surrendered in a county other than the jurisdiction where the case is pending.

Specialty Surfaces Int'l, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 3d Cir., Construction, Contracts, Insurance Law) In plaintiffs' action against its insurer, seeking declaratory relief that the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying action, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed where: 1) Pennsylvania has a far greater interest in having the coverage issue determined in accordance with its law than California; 2) the insurer did not have a duty to defend after receiving notice of the original complaint; 3) the insurer was not required to defend plaintiff because the allegations in the amended complaint do not support a determination that any damage was caused by an "occurrence," as any damages to plaintiff's own work product based on plaintiff's alleged negligence claims are claims of damage based on faulty workmanship.

FDIC v. Great Am. Ins. Co.

Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Banking Law, Contracts, Government Law, Insurance Law) In an action for breach of an insurance contract, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court erred in ruling that the fidelity bond at issue was not an "asset" under 12 U.S.C. section 1823(e), but to honor the FDIC's position and allow it to recover would effectively strike the rescission clause from the bond.