Our hearts go out to the survivors of these deadly fires.
In the recent decision Three Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 18 C.D.O.S10377, a California appellate court held that insurance covered the loss of value of a business resulting form the business losing its permit to operate a nightclub in its premises. The case provided well-needed clarification in a confusing area of law and provides some key lessons for lawyers when pleading their cases.
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In its recent unpublished decision Allstate New Jersey Insurance Co. v Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:2017cv02738 (D. N. J. July 24, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the District of New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).