Insurers Beware: Choice of Law Provisions May be Overridden by Public Policy Provisions

Insurers Beware: Choice of Law Provisions May be Overridden by Public Policy Provisions

…
Continue Reading Insurers Beware: Choice of Law Provisions May be Overridden by Public Policy Provisions

September 13, 2019

In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice of law analysis; and 2) if so, whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the consent provision of the insurance policy in the case before the court. Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2:13-cv-05863-GW-E (Cal. 2019). The “notice-prejudice rule” requires that if an

District Court of Appeal of Florida Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer on Bad Faith Claim Where Issue Remained as to Whether Insurer’s Initial Denial of Coverage Above Policy Sublimit Was Made in Good Faith

Continue Reading District Court of Appeal of Florida Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer on Bad Faith Claim Where Issue Remained as to Whether Insurer’s Initial Denial of Coverage Above Policy Sublimit Was Made in Good Faith

August 6, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | District Court of Appeal of Florida Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer on Bad Faith Claim Where Issue Remained as to Whether Insurer’s Initial Denial of Coverage Above Policy Sublimit Was Made in Good Faith

Search our Site

District of Colorado Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Where Insured Demonstrated Material Factual Issues as to Whether Insurer Acted Unreasonably in Denying Insured's Claim

Continue Reading District of Colorado Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Where Insured Demonstrated Material Factual Issues as to Whether Insurer Acted Unreasonably in Denying Insured's Claim

August 2, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | District of Colorado Denies Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Where Insured Demonstrated Material Factual Issues as to Whether Insurer Acted Unreasonably in Denying Insured’s Claim

Search our Site

District of Rhode Island Applies Follows Eighth Circuit Rationale as Law of the Case to Allow Claim for Insurance Bad Faith to Proceed Without Claim for Breach of Contract

…
Continue Reading District of Rhode Island Applies Follows Eighth Circuit Rationale as Law of the Case to Allow Claim for Insurance Bad Faith to Proceed Without Claim for Breach of Contract

July 29, 2019

District of Rhode Island Applies Follows Eighth Circuit Rationale as Law of the Case to Allow Claim for Insurance Bad Faith to Proceed Without Claim for Breach of Contract

Columbia Casualty Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, No. 15-197, 2019 WL 2176306 (D.R.I. May 20, 2019)
In a dispute between two insurers arising from the once-largest medical malpractice award in Rhode Island history, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held that Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”)’s claims could proceed against Columbia Casualty Company (“Columbia”) where it alleged Columbia acted in bad faith by gambling with

Delaware Superior Court Upholds Motion to Compel Insurer to Produce Defense Medical Examination Reports Because the Reports Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence of Insurer’s State of Mind in Bad Faith Litigation

Continue Reading Delaware Superior Court Upholds Motion to Compel Insurer to Produce Defense Medical Examination Reports Because the Reports Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence of Insurer’s State of Mind in Bad Faith Litigation

July 26, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | Delaware Superior Court Upholds Motion to Compel Insurer to Produce Defense Medical Examination Reports Because the Reports Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence of Insurer’s State of Mind in Bad Faith Litigation

Search our Site

Seventh Circuit: No Bad Faith Failure to Settle Where Insurer Did Not Believe Adverse Judgment Was Reasonably Probable Despite Recognizing Possibility of Exposure to Damages Beyond Policy Limits

Continue Reading Seventh Circuit: No Bad Faith Failure to Settle Where Insurer Did Not Believe Adverse Judgment Was Reasonably Probable Despite Recognizing Possibility of Exposure to Damages Beyond Policy Limits

May 21, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | Seventh Circuit: No Bad Faith Failure to Settle Where Insurer Did Not Believe Adverse Judgment Was Reasonably Probable Despite Recognizing Possibility of Exposure to Damages Beyond Policy Limits

Search our Site

Washington Court of Appeals Highlights Limitations on Third-Party Standing to Bring Bad Faith and Statutory Claims Against Insurers

…
Continue Reading Washington Court of Appeals Highlights Limitations on Third-Party Standing to Bring Bad Faith and Statutory Claims Against Insurers

April 30, 2019

Washington Court of Appeals Highlights Limitations on Third-Party Standing to Bring Bad Faith and Statutory Claims Against Insurers

After her condo unit was damaged by fire and water, Gretchen Michels sued Farmers Insurance Exchange, her condominium association’s insurer, for bad faith and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
As required by the Washington Condominium Act, the condominium association had purchased the Farmers policy to provide coverage to unit owners for liability arising out of their interest in common elements in the building. As such, the condominium association was the named insured under the policy, with “insured” defined to include

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA HOLDS THAT INSURER’S DUTY TO SETTLE ARISES ONLY WHEN THE INJURED PARTY PRESENTS A VALID OFFER TO SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS

…
Continue Reading SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA HOLDS THAT INSURER’S DUTY TO SETTLE ARISES ONLY WHEN THE INJURED PARTY PRESENTS A VALID OFFER TO SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS

April 8, 2019

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA HOLDS THAT INSURER’S DUTY TO SETTLE ARISES ONLY WHEN THE INJURED PARTY PRESENTS A VALID OFFER TO SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS

On August 29, 2008, Ronald Jackson (Jackson) caused a multi-vehicle collision. He later died from his injuries. At the time of the collision, First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia Inc. (First Acceptance) insured Jackson under a policy with bodily injury liability limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. After the collision, First Acceptance was notified that five individuals, including Julie An (An) and her minor daughter Jina Hong (Hong), had been injured. First Acceptance determined

CONSTRAINED BY RULE 12(B)(6), SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT DENIES INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS INSURED’S BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BAD FAITH CLAIMS DUE EVEN WHILE DEEMED RECOVERY “VERY REMOTE AND UNLIKELY”

Continue Reading CONSTRAINED BY RULE 12(B)(6), SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT DENIES INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS INSURED’S BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BAD FAITH CLAIMS DUE EVEN WHILE DEEMED RECOVERY “VERY REMOTE AND UNLIKELY”

April 8, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | CONSTRAINED BY RULE 12(B)(6), SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT DENIES INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS INSURED’S BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BAD FAITH CLAIMS DUE EVEN WHILE DEEMED RECOVERY “VERY REMOTE AND UNLIKELY”

Search our Site

Federal Court Shuts Down Bad Faith Plaintiff’s Attempt At Forum Shopping

March 18, 2019

An insurer successfully defeated a plaintiff’s attempt to keep a bad faith action in state court by “manipulating” federal diversity jurisdiction by naming an individual claims adjuster as a defendant. Capitol Body Shop, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-516, 2019 WL 943414 (S.D. Miss. Feb 26, 2019). After determining that plaintiff failed to plead a viable claim against the claims adjuster, the court granted Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss Improperly Joined Defendant and denied plaintiff’s motion for remand.
In July 2017, Capitol Body Shop, a Mississippi corporation located in Jackson, Mississippi, performed a repair on a vehicle insured by Allstate.
Continue Reading Federal Court Shuts Down Bad Faith Plaintiff’s Attempt At Forum Shopping

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Dismisses Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Against Insurer Where Insured Failed to Support Allegations of Bad Faith with Specific Facts and Common Law Claim Was Subsumed by Breach of Contract Claim

Continue Reading Eastern District of Pennsylvania Dismisses Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Against Insurer Where Insured Failed to Support Allegations of Bad Faith with Specific Facts and Common Law Claim Was Subsumed by Breach of Contract Claim

February 15, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | Eastern District of Pennsylvania Dismisses Statutory and Common Law Bad Faith Claims Against Insurer Where Insured Failed to Support Allegations of Bad Faith with Specific Facts and Common Law Claim Was Subsumed by Breach of Contract Claim

Search our Site

Northern District of Illinois Dismisses Statutory Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer Where Bona Fide Coverage Dispute Existed and Insured Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts Showing That Insurer Unreasonably Refused to Comply with Policy Obligations

Continue Reading Northern District of Illinois Dismisses Statutory Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer Where Bona Fide Coverage Dispute Existed and Insured Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts Showing That Insurer Unreasonably Refused to Comply with Policy Obligations

February 13, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | Northern District of Illinois Dismisses Statutory Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer Where Bona Fide Coverage Dispute Existed and Insured Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts Showing That Insurer Unreasonably Refused to Comply with Policy Obligations

Search our Site

Not in Time: Complaint Remanded Where Insurer “Should Have Known” That the Amount in Controversy Exceeded the Jurisdictional Threshold Because the insureds did not Expressly Limit Their Demand for bad faith Damages

Continue Reading Not in Time: Complaint Remanded Where Insurer “Should Have Known” That the Amount in Controversy Exceeded the Jurisdictional Threshold Because the insureds did not Expressly Limit Their Demand for bad faith Damages

February 8, 2019

Saul Ewing Blogs | Not in Time: Complaint Remanded Where Insurer “Should Have Known” That the Amount in Controversy Exceeded the Jurisdictional Threshold Because the insureds did not Expressly Limit Their Demand for bad faith Damages

Search our Site

Sent v. Received: Insurer Defeats Bad Faith Claim by Demonstrating That it Mailed Notice of Cancellation

…
Continue Reading Sent v. Received: Insurer Defeats Bad Faith Claim by Demonstrating That it Mailed Notice of Cancellation

January 28, 2019

Sent v. Received: Insurer Defeats Bad Faith Claim by Demonstrating That it Mailed Notice of Cancellation

After a fire damaged their home, Robert and Janet Fuller submitted a claim under their homeowners policy with Safeco Insurance Company. Safeco denied the Fullers’ claim on the basis that it had cancelled the policy for nonpayment of premium prior to the fire. The Fullers sued for breach of contract and bad faith; Safeco moved for summary judgment … twice.
In its first motion for summary judgment, Safeco argued that its pre-loss cancellation of the Fullers’ policy precluded the Fullers’ claims. The district court

New York Appellate Court: No Heightened Pleading Requirement for Consequential Damages Sought by Insureds

…
Continue Reading New York Appellate Court: No Heightened Pleading Requirement for Consequential Damages Sought by Insureds

January 23, 2019

New York Appellate Court: No Heightened Pleading Requirement for Consequential Damages Sought by Insureds

The plaintiff in D.K. Prop., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., No. 650733/17, 2019 WL 237454 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 17, 2019) claimed that its building began to shift and exhibit structural damage, including cracks, after construction work began in an adjoining building. Plaintiff filed a claim with National Union for the “direct physical loss [and] damage.” National Union did not pay or deny the claim; instead, over the course of three years, it sent regular demands for additional information, keeping its

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Declines to Remand Bad Faith Claims, Holding that Fraudulently Joined Claims Adjuster did not Defeat Diversity