Legal News and Cases

News

Insurance

[07/22] UnitedHealth 2Q profit falls on charges, tops view
[07/21] Medically unfit truck drivers still on roads
[07/21] NTSB's 8 proposals to bar medically unfit drivers
[07/18] Small plane crash near Tampa kills 3
[07/18] Several teenagers injured in Utah bus crash
[07/02] UnitedHealth cuts 4,000 jobs and 2008 outlook
[06/26] Fidelity: $85k needed for long-term care costs
[06/25] Insurer wants to sell wind, flood coverage in 1 policy

More...

Case Summaries

Insurance Law

[07/21] Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. Inc.
In a case involving the contractual duty to defend in a noninsurance context, judgment and rulings against defendant-subcontractor is affirmed where, by their particular terms, the provisions of a pre-2006 residential construction subcontract obliged subcontractor to defend its indemnitee-developer/builder in lawsuits brought against both parties, insofar as the plaintiffs' complaints alleged construction defects arising from the subcontractor's negligence, even though: 1) a jury ultimately found that the subcontractor was not negligent; and 2) the parties accepted an interpretation of the subcontract that gave the builder no right of indemnity unless the subcontractor was negligent.

[07/21] Hoag v. Amex Ins. Co.
Dismissal of plaintiff's uninsured-motorist claim as a sanction for his failure to provide discovery as ordered by the trial court was neither too extreme nor an abuse of discretion where the failures were willful and repeated.

[07/18] LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

[07/18] Anderson v. Farm Service Agency
In an appeal of a determination by the Farm Service Agency, a ruling upholding a decision by the FSA which adjusted plaintiff's claim for crop disaster relief downward under the Quality Loss Program is affirmed where: 1) the FSA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by interpreting its regulations in a manner that precluded plaintiff from using the yield in his actual production history records; and 2) plaintiff failed to establish an alternative applicable rate.

[07/18] Evanoff v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
In a suit seeking insurance coverage for flood damage to plaintiff's condominium unit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for submitting a proof of loss statement, as mandated by the federal regulations governing the National Flood Insurance Program; 2) defendant did not repudiate its policy with plaintiff; and 3) plaintiff had ample opportunity to conduct discovery.

[07/17] Guaranty Bank v. Chubb Corp.
In a suit involving an insurer's obligation to defend its insured under an "advertising injury" policy when the insured was sued over the similarity of its name to a competitor's, summary judgment to the defendant-insurer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-insured had failed to give defendant timely notice of the suit and 2) plaintiff had been sued for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition, but plaintiff's policy covered only suits involving registered trademarks.

[07/16] Explorer Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez
In a declaratory relief action seeking a determination that defendant had no cognizable claim for underinsured motorist benefits, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the "narrow coverage" of uninsured/underinsured benefits in California the comparison in coverage is based on the potential for recovery and not what is actually recovered in a particular case; and 2) each policy contained the same coverage limit.

[06/26] Peterson v. Cellco Partnership
Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' case with prejudice after the court sustained defendant's demurrers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support their standing to bring an unfair competition claim; and 2) plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim was based on alleged Insurance Code violations for which no private right of action exists, and plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.