In Mills v. Foremost Insurance Co., No. 06-16458 (Jan. 4, 2008), the 11th Circuit recently overturned the dismissal of Florida hurricane victims’ class-action lawsuit relating to mobile home damages. The plaintiffs claimed that their insurer underpaid for the damage to their mobile homes.
Read More 11th Circuit Reinstates Hurricane Class-Action Lawsuit
Extra-Contractual Liability
California Wildfire Decisions May Provide a Guide for Future Disputes
In the wake of the wildfires that devastated Southern California in October of last year, more than 22,000 insurance claims were filed, according to the Insurance Information Network of California. While the bulk of those claims may be for additional living expenses due to the mass evacuation of San Diego County, at least 1,500 homes were destroyed by the fires.
…
Read More California Wildfire Decisions May Provide a Guide for Future Disputes
Ohio Court of Appeals: Consideration of Extrinsic Evidence is Proper in Determining Meaning of Policy Wording As to Aggregate Limits Where Portions of the Policy at Issue are Missing
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The Ohio state Court of Appeals recently determined that where portions of insurance policies at the center of a dispute were missing, the lower court’s consideration of extrinsic evidence in determining the meaning behind ambiguous policy wording was proper.
Ninth Circuit Vacates $10 Million Bad Faith Punitive Damages Award
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a Nevada federal jury award of $10 million in punitive damages against Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and Unum Provident. …
Read More Ninth Circuit Vacates $10 Million Bad Faith Punitive Damages Award
California Court Affirms Multimillion-Dollar Verdict Against Insurer That Failed to Settle Underlying Case for $100,000 Policy Limit
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
In Encarnacion v. 20th Century Ins. Co., Nos. B179825 & 182737 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2007), an unreported decision, a California appeals court recently affirmed a multimillion-dollar verdict against an insurer that failed to settle the underlying suit for the $100,000 policy limit.
Massachusetts Courts Weigh In On Conflicts of Law, Bad Faith Damages And Duty To Defend
Three recent Massachusetts cases touched on issues of significance to insurers doing business in and around the Commonwealth.
…
Read More Massachusetts Courts Weigh In On Conflicts of Law, Bad Faith Damages And Duty To Defend
New York’s Highest Court: “Relations of Earnings to Insurance” Clause Located In “General Provisions” Section of Disability Insurance Policy Is Enforceable
The New York Court of Appeals recently rejected an insured’s argument that the placement of a “Relation of Earnings to Insurance” (REI) Clause within the “General Provisions” of a disability insurance policy rendered the clause deceptive and unenforceable.
Louisiana AG Sues More Than One Hundred Insurance Companies Over Katrina-Related Damages
On August 23, 2007, Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr. filed a lawsuit accusing over one hundred insurance companies of improperly denying Katrina related damages. The action was brought on behalf of homeowners who are eligible to receive funds through the Road Home Program (“Program”).
…
Read More Louisiana AG Sues More Than One Hundred Insurance Companies Over Katrina-Related Damages
Under Certain Policy Language, Settlement Payments Not Recoverable Absent Adjudication in California
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
A California appellate court recently ruled that propulsion manufacturer Aerojet’s payment of approximately $175 million to settle regulatory enforcement actions over liability for groundwater contamination cannot be recovered under certain excess policies absent a final adjudication of liability.
California Federal Court: No Bad Faith Just Because Arbitrator Awards More Than Insurer Had Offered to Pay
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California recently held that there was no bad faith where the insurer had a reasonable basis upon which to genuinely dispute the insured’s claim.