Westlaw Topical Highlights: Insurance, June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

insuranceWestlaw 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.

Liability: Homeowner’s insurance policy’s business exclusion applied to claims against insured arising from dog-bite injury to child.  Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davenport 2013 WL 2318647 (E.D.Mich.) Under Michigan law, a homeowner’s insurance policy’s business exclusion applied to claims against the insured arising from a dog-bite injury to a child for whom the insured was providing day care at the insured premises. The exclusion provided that the insurer had no liability for injury claims “[a]rising out of or in connection with a ‘business’,” which was defined to include an insured’s occupation. The insured’s day care business was her occupation. 2013 WL 2318647  (The full-text of the rest of the Topical Highlights are available within Westlaw Next, subscription required)

Property: Notice conditions applied upon discovery, rather than after independent investigation.  B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co. 2013 WL 2254436 (D.Kan.)

Health: State law providing that insurers could not provide contraceptive coverage based on religious objection was preempted.  Missouri Ins. Coalition v. Huff 2013 WL 2250430 (E.D.Mo.)

Sureties: Surety did not have improper motive in making payments that were not reasonable and before final completion costs were known.  Hanover Ins. Co. v. Hudak & Dawson Const. 2013 WL 2248166 (N.D.Ala.)

Life: ERISA did not preempt employee’s widow’s negligence claim against employer’s insurer’s broker.  Kersh v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co. 2013 WL 2286078 (W.D.Tex.)

Title: Title insurance policy entitled insurer to request documents pertaining to tax liens on insured’s property.  Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC 2013 WL 1800101 (Conn.App.)

Automobile: Plaintiff was not entitled to be reimbursed the base price for van as an allowable expense under personal injury protection benefit statute.  Admire v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. 2013 WL 2278029 (Mich.)

Duty to Defend: Facts in underlying complaint indicated that insured may have been negligent in not discovering preexisting vehicle damage.  Automax Hyundai South, L.L.C. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 2013 WL 3198603 (C.A.10 (Okla.))

Arbitration and Appraisal: Master arbitrator did not exceed his power by making de novo finding that arbitration agreement lacked limitations waiver.  In re Gee (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.) 2013 WL 2677280 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.)