- Volume 17, Issue #17
- Parties Submit Arguments Over Underinsured Motorist Coverage In Montana Court
HELENA, Mont.- An insured who sought coverage for injuries incurred in a vehicle accident and an insurer recently submitted arguments to the Montana Supreme Court, disputing whether a trial court's decision granting summary judgment for the insurer and finding that underinsured motorist coverage under the policy was $2,500 should be affirmed (Jamie Cramer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, DA 17-0658, Mont. Sup.).
- Missouri Appeals Court Set To Consider Underinsured Motorist Coverage
ST. LOUIS - An insurer and the mother of a deceased daughter filed competing briefs with a Missouri appellate court recently over whether underinsured motors coverage covered the decedent or whether a provision excluding vehicle owners precluded such coverage (Leslie Seaton v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., No. ED105895, Mo. App., Eastern Dist.).
- Hotel Tells 10th Circuit Air Exclusion Is Ambiguous, Coverage Is Owed
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on May 15 in a case in which a hotel company contends that an indoor air exclusion provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous when it is applied to the third-party carbon monoxide poisoning claims for which it seeks coverage (Siloam Springs Hotel LLC v. Century Surety Company, No. 17-6208, 10th Cir.).
- Florida Court Considers What Falls In Contract's Auto Business Exclusion
MIAMI - A Florida appeals court is being asked to decide whether a mechanic driving a vehicle with an insured in the passenger seat constitutes an auto business operation triggering an insurance policy exclusion (Luis Matamoros v. Infinity Auto Insurance Co., No. 3D17-0505, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
- Woman Asks 4th Circuit To Reverse Disability Insurance Benefit Ruling
RICHMOND, Va. - A North Carolina woman is asking the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court's ruling regarding her disability insurance coverage claim because benefit increases that she purchased on her policy were wrongly retracted when the insurer initially denied her claim and then later elected to pay benefits to a retroactive date (Jessica Slice-Sadler v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 17-2249, 4th Cir.).
- Court Wrongly Created All-Encompassing Additional Insured Coverage, Insurer Says
ST. LOUIS - An insurer recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court's ruling that a conference center is entitled to coverage as an additional insured, arguing that a minor's injuries from a zip-lining accident did not arise out any portion of the premises the conference center leased to the insured (Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center Inc., et al., 17-3635, 8th Cir.).
- Insurer Asks 5th Circuit To Reverse Coverage Ruling In Dispute Over Occupancy Rights
NEW ORLEANS - An insurer recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court's finding that it has a duty to defend against an underlying lawsuit alleging that an insured failed to timely negotiate a commercial lease agreement (2200 West Alabama Inc. v. Western World Insurance Co., 17-20640, 5th Cir.).
- Dismissal Sought Of RICO Action Over Reinsurance Premium Kickback Scheme
TRENTON, N.J. - In a lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a mortgage company, insurer and insurance broker argue in May 14 reply briefs in New Jersey federal court that homeowners failed to allege a scheme on lender-placed insurance (LPI) involving the use of kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
- Reinsurer, Insurer File Trial Briefs In $3.2M Asbestos Claims Dispute
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A reinsurer and an insurer filed trial briefs June 5 with a New York federal court in a dispute over whether the reinsurer is obligated to pay $3.2 million in reinsurance proceeds for the insurer's defense expenses from an asbestos claims settlement (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y.).
- Flood Insurer Responds To Louisiana Insureds' Suit Over Supplemental Flood Claim
BATON ROUGE, La. - A federal flood insurer on March 28 responded to Louisiana insureds' federal court lawsuit alleging that it breached the insurance policy by failing to pay their supplemental claim for flood damage, asserting that all extracontractual and tort claims arising out of the handling of the flood loss claim under the policy are preempted by federal law (Randell Whittington, et al. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 18-00213, M.D. La.).