Insurance Law – Week of October 21, 2022 – Insurance Law & Products – USA

To print this article, simply register or log in to

Pandemic update

The Ninth Circuit has issued an undisclosed judgment. BA LAX LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. No. 21-55109 (9th Cir. 21 Oct. 2022) found that plaintiffs did not allege “physical alteration” of their property to meet the policy’s requirement of “direct physical loss.” , the District of California also declares no allegations. A court judge abuses his discretion by refusing to defer a ruling until the insured has more time to pursue discovery.

Following the Washington Supreme Court’s recent unanimous proclamation in Hill & Stout v. Mutual of Enumclaw, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the dentist’s COVID BI lawsuit and ruled that: Caballero vs Massachusetts Bay Inns. Ltd, According to No. 21-35510 (9th Cir. 17 October 2022), the claim was not for “direct physical loss” and the government’s shutdown order was for health concerns, not for danger. was issued to, so the governmental authority’s coverage did not apply. Check the property’s terms and conditions and that these claims were in any event covered by the policy’s virus exclusions.

Resulting new case


Hopefully, in one of the final chapters of insurance coverage disputes of Dickensian length and Byzantine procedural complexity, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled on state courts despite exclusion doctrines. It ruled that the insured’s previous litigation in , was not barred from claim attempts. Punitive Damages in Federal Court. Emphasizing its view that the outcome of this case was somewhat unusual, the Court of Appeals ruled that: Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Southeast, According to No. 21-3171 (7th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022), Illinois courts have clarified a plaintiff’s right in the first case to allow the court to maintain the second case, as here. We allow exceptions to the general rule of exclusion of claims if you reserve to However, the court expressed disappointment with this outcome. We respect and accept the express decision of the Illinois Circuit Court to reserve Creation Supply’s breach of contract claim in federal court. ”

eleventh circuit Exclude Fireworks (WI)

The 11th Circuit has ruled that the fireworks manufacturer’s liability insurance company is obligated to defend or indemnify against a personal injury lawsuit brought by a volunteer at the Land O’ Lakes Municipal Fireworks Show on July 4. I made the decision not to.Applying Wisconsin law, the court Inns. Co. v. OlsonAccording to No. 22-1143 (11th Cir. 17 October 2022), claims arising from the injury or death of shooters or their assistants hired to carry out the firework display clearly ” It was subject to the “Shooters Guaranteed” exclusion. In rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that the exclusion applies only to volunteers assisting paid “shooters,” the Court of Appeals denies the exclusion. “Shooters” and “other persons” were volunteers to assist or assist in the display of fireworks, and the individual lighting of the fireworks (“shooting”) was also voluntary. applies here if

Arizona First Party Bad Faith/Waiver/Mitigation

Arizona Supreme Court ruled Cavallo vs. Phoenix Health Plans, Inc., No. CV-21-0051 (October 20, 2022, Arizona) First-instance court orders waiver in health insurance dishonesty lawsuit where there was no evidence that the insured willfully waived In remanding the action for further proceedings, the Court also noted that the damages mitigation instruction read, “A person aggrieved by another tort shall 918 of the tort restatement (No. 2) to the effect that the damages that he could have avoided by using reasonable efforts or expenses after committing the tort; ”

kentucky Excluding/Retrieving Previous Events

Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Darwin Select Ins. Inc., 2020 SC 0260 (Ky. Oct. 20, 2022) The State Intermediate Court of Appeals erred in granting summary judgment to D&O Insurance Company based on the “prior notice” exclusion. The Court held that Darwin did not constitute a circumstance in which the 2011 subpoena would give notice of a potential claim under this policy, and therefore relied on those same circumstances to seek relief under this exclusion. I focused on the fact that you argued that you can’t. Further, the court found in hindsight that the Department of Justice was investigating the insured, but its 2011 subpoena did not inform the insured of the detailed facts required by this exclusion. Further, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not have the jurisdiction to order the insured to repay Darwin. because the issue of damages was not the subject of a final order from the Trial Judge.

Minnesota First Party/Pre-Judgment Interest

If the homeowner’s policy stated that the insurer would pay for losses in excess of the insured’s deductible, referencing pre-judgment interest “so as not to exceed applicable insurance limits.” If not, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the appeal: The court erred in holding that the homeowner’s right to collect pre-judgment interest on covered fire damage was limited by policy restrictions. Minnesota’s standard fire insurance policy (Minnesota Statute Section 65A.01) insures pre-judgment interest on the full amount of the insured loss, even if the total recovery exceeds the policy limit. The court ruled in Else v. Auto Owner Inn. Co., A20-476 (Minn. Oct. 5, 2022), Section 65A.01, Subdivision 3 contains language allowing arbitration “with interest from the time the loss becomes payable.” It was not the legislature’s intention to limit insurers’ liability to “insured sums.” Moreover, if the insurer denies coverage outright, the court will allow the insured to file proof of loss from 60 days before judgment, even if the loss has not been “confirmed” by then. of interest should accrue. Justice Thissen (joined by Chief Justices Gildea and Anderson) wrote a dissenting opinion stating that his loss was “confirmed” until the trial court found his fire loss and Auto-Owners’ coverage. Else argued that it should not have recovered its pre-judgment profits because it did not. Section 65A.01 provided that he had paid the full amount of the loss within the 60-day safe he had under the Harbor Rules.

Other developments of note

inside the insurance industry

An investor has sued Argo Group, alleging that the company overstated its prospects for underwriting results that led to a 60% decline in the stock price when the truth came to light.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called on the state legislature to return to a special session in December on new issues presented after the Sunshine State property insurance crisis and Hurricane Ian.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. You should seek professional advice for your particular situation.

Popular Articles: Insurance from the USA

Negligence is not good enough / setup tactics are not favored

Shepard Malin Richter & Hampton

Over the past decade, policy limit settlement requests with myriad conditions have become the norm. Conditions are often imposed with the expectation that insurers will fail in their efforts to comply.

Insurance Malpractice Report, October 2022


Daikema’s Nationally Recognized Insurance Practice is pleased to present its Insurance Malpractice Report. Full copies of all quarterly reports and decisions reviewed…

get the insurance company to settle the lawsuit favorably

Irvin Cohen & Jessup

If the liability insurance company assumes the defense of the insured on the basis of a reservation of rights, various disputes may arise between the parties when settlement negotiations to be settled…

Leave a Comment