Coverage & Claims

Subscribe to Coverage & Claims via RSS
In Mr Peter Crowson v HSBC Insurance Brokers Ltd (unreported), the Judge, in considering an application to strike out the claimant’s claim, held that an individual who is not in a contractual relationship with an insurance broker may have rights of action in tort and/or contract where the insurance to be arranged is also for his benefit. 

…
Read More UK: Third Parties May Have Rights of Action Against Insurance Brokers

In a class action lawsuit brought by various auto body shops and the Auto Body Association of Connecticut, a Connecticut jury recently rendered a $14.7 million verdict against an insurance company for allegedly violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110a et seq. (“CUTPA”). 

…
Read More Connecticut Jury Awards $14.7 Million Against Insurer for Violation of Unfair Trade Practices Act in Auto Body Shop Class Action Lawsuit; Continued Vitality of “Cigarette Rule” at Issue

A Connecticut Superior Court recently awarded summary judgment in favor of an insurer on the basis that an insured’s family member who resides in the insured’s household is not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits if they are similarly not entitled to liability coverage under the family member’s policy. …
Read More Connecticut Superior Court Held that Insurer Was Not Required to Provide Underinsured Motorist Coverage for Insured’s Family Member

A Connecticut trial court recently held that the “general business practice” element of an unfair settlement practice claim under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §38a-816(6) (“CUIPA”) requires that a plaintiff prove multiple unfair practices by an insurer against more than one insured. …
Read More Connecticut Trial Court Holds That “General Business Practice” Element of an Unfair Settlement Practice Claim Requires Multiple Acts of Misconduct Against Multiple Insureds

In the case of Goldsmith Williams v Travelers Insurance Company Limited [2010] EWHC 26, Mr Justice Wyn Williams considered the question of whether a company had acted fraudulently. Goldsmith Williams brought a claim against Travelers Insurance Company Limited using the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (the 1930 Act). …
Read More UK: High Court Finds that Claim is Excluded as a Result of Director’s Aiding and Abetting

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed a trial court decision barring a police officer from recovering underinsured motorist benefits because he was not “occupying” a covered motor vehicle at the time he was injured and, consequently, is limited to his workers’ compensation remedy by the exclusivity provision contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284 (a). 

…
Read More Connecticut Appellate Court: Traffic Cop Not “Occupying” a Covered Vehicle at Time Struck is Limited to Workers’ Compensation Benefits

In Sadler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 08-35859 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2009), the insureds sued their insurer for bad faith, among other claims, arising from their insurer’s refusal to pre-authorize surgery under the personal injury protection (“PIP”) provision of the automobile insurance policy. 

…
Read More Ninth Circuit: Automobile Insurer Did Not Engage in Bad Faith by Refusing to Pre-Authorize Treatment Under PIP Coverage

In Mosser Constr. Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., Civil Action No. 3:08CV2363 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2009) (Zouhary, J.), an Ohio District Court was confronted with the question of whether a company that supplied crushed stone backfill to a general contractor is a “subcontractor” within the meaning of the insurance policy, or merely a “material supplier.” 

…
Read More Ohio District Court Holds Supplier of Defective Materials is Not a Subcontractor For Purposes of Exception to “Your Work” Exclusion

In Global Process Systems Inc & Anor v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad [2009] EWCA Civ 1398, the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judgment of the Commercial Court (previously reported here), and found that the cause of the loss was not ‘inherent vice’ (a risk excluded under the claimant insured’s ‘all risks’ policy) but ‘perils of the sea’, a covered risk. …
Read More UK: Court of Appeal Overturns Recent Judgment on ‘Inherent Vice’