August 9, 2013
Westlaw Topical Highlights for Insurance provides summaries of significant federal and state judicial decisions and legislative and administrative activities affecting Insurance law. A Westlaw subscription is required to access the documents linked from this page.
Screen Actors Guild Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. 2013 WL 3525273 (C.D.Cal.) The underlying claims against an insured actors’ union, relating to the delayed distribution of foreign royalties to the union’s members, arose of out the union’s pre-settlement obligation to account for and distribute foreign royalties to its members, rather than a wrongful act. Thus, under California law, the insurer was not required, under the liability policy providing coverage for claims for wrongful acts, to indemnify the union for the settlement of a member’s class action claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, accounting, and violation of California’s unfair competition law. 2013 WL 3525273. (The full-text of the rest of the Topical Highlights are available within Westlaw Next, subscription required).
Automobile: Automobile insurer’s offer to insured of full settlement for damages without conceding liability rendered action moot. Aragona v. Allstate Ins. Co,. 2013 WL 3927801 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.)
Liability: Welding work done by subcontractor while performing stair repairs fell within term “handyman” as used in liability policy. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Paniagua, 2013 WL 3965164 (W.D.Tenn.)
Arbitration and Appraisal: Insured was entitled to collect post-award, prejudgment interest from disability insurer on non-contract damages. Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 2013 WL 3970092 (C.A.9 (Nev.))
Agents and Brokers: When underwritten title company solicited applications for insurance in an unlawful way, title insurer was responsible. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Washington State Office of Ins. Com’r, 2013 WL 3946060 (Wash.)
Jurisdiction: The cost of insurer’s tendering a defense could be included in the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes. Elisias v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3924109 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.)
Automobile: Jury instruction on apportionment against dram shop operator was not warranted, in action for UIM benefits. Botkin v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. 2013 WL 3489469 (E.D.Ky.)
Automobile: MedPay coverage would apply even where a health insurance provider had paid medical expenses. Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4007780 (Mass.)
Life: Policy that listed husband in priority of default beneficiaries, yet named mother as contingent beneficiary, was ambiguous. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Horne, 2012 WL 5870386 (Tenn.Ct.App.)