In its recent decision in Nautilus Ins. Co. v. EJIII Development Co., No. 1:17-cv-2048-TCB (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that insurer Nautilus Insurance Company did not have to provide a defense to a wrongful death lawsuit where its insurance policy contained an assault-and-battery exclusion and an endorsement covering “security and patrol agency services.”
In its recent unpublished decision Allstate New Jersey Insurance Co. v Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:2017cv02738 (D. N. J. July 24, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that Amazon, Inc. was not liable as the seller of a laptop battery that allegedly caught fire and destroyed the customer’s home.
Insurers can recover the costs of investigating fraudulent claims, but must submit detailed expense records to the court.
Recently, a Federal judge in the Northern District of California continued the trend of reading the “professional services” exclusion broadly. This time, to exclude coverage for a security company for security guard work. Burlington Ins. Co. v. Bay One Security, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-04734-YGR, 2018 WL 1730425 (N.D. Cal. April 10, 2018).
A truck driver for a Michigan company, driving in Georgia was seriously injured when he was injured investigating a fire near the rear of the truck. The driver then sought benefits under a Personal Injury Policy (PIP) issued to the truck owner R-1 Express, by Sentry Insurance. Odeh v. Sentry Ins., No. 337648, 2018 WL 1403572 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2018). His claim was denied because he was outside of the vehilce when the accident happened.
A Florida court of appeal reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an insured’s breach of contract claim against his insurer stemming from a car accident. Faris v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., Case No. 5D16-4037, 2018 WL 1219074, (Fla. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).
New laws to make insurance claims easier after fire disasters are being debated by the Legislature. We explore these proposals in this article.
First-party auto insurance policies typically extend coverage beyond the named insured to their relatives, as well as others who live with and are economically dependent on them. But who precisely that includes is not always clear. A Delaware court recently held that an insured's live-in boyfriend was not entitled to coverage under her auto policy because he did not qualify as a "relative" or a "household resident," even though he was planning to propose when the accident happened. Lockhart v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., C.A. No. CPU4-17-001788, 2018 WL 1399612 (Del. Mar. 19, 2018).
Following the annual Christmas parade in the city McRae, GA, the operator and passenger of a mule-drawn cart, both covered by their own respective policies through Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., were were struck from behind by a vehicle built with more modern technology. Georgia Farm Bur. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Claxton, A18A0737, 2018 WL 1573032, (Ga. Ct. App. April 2, 2018). The passenger in the carriage sued the carriage operator to recover for his injuries in the crash. Georgia Farm Bureau then filed a declaratory judgment arguing it owed no coverage under either of the policies. The court of appeals disagreed and held that a jury had to decide two factual questions in order to determine whether coverage existed.
Insurance companies often contain “nationwide coverage” clauses in their policies. Generally, these clauses mean that the policy covers accidents occurring anywhere in the United States. Contracting to provide such broad coverage can subject insurers to personal jurisdiction in states where the insured resides or the covered event occurs – even if the insurance company has no employees, agents, or offices in the state and does not otherwise conduct business there. However, recently, a federal district court in California ruled that it did not have personal jurisdiction over an insurance company despite a nationwide coverage clause in the insurance policy issued by the insurer.