Cases for the October 2013 Edition of CaseWatch

The below cases correspond with the October edition of CaseWatch: Insurance and the analysis of each case. Click here for access to the newsletter. Cases are provided courtesy of LexisNexis.

Affinity Health Plan

Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Biochemics, Inc. v. Axis Reinsurance Co.

Brannan Paving GP, LLC v. Pavement Markings, Inc.

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nanodetex Corp.

Detroit Med. Ctr. v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company

Doe Run Resources Corporation v. Lexington Insurance Company

Dupree v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

Continue Reading

Caveat Emptor – Let the Buyer Beware of Health Care Phish

Caveat emptor — “Let the buyer beware” is a good rule of thumb for people to keep in mind as they begin to sign up for health insurance under the new exchanges established in accordance with the Affordable Care Act. Law enforcement and security professionals are warning consumers to beware of phishing schemes associated with the new health care exchanges. Insurers and employers alike can assist in this effort by educating consumers and employees on this danger and provide practical suggestions for ensuring that they …

Continue Reading

Double Trouble: No Summary Judgment Where Trucking Company May Qualify as Insured Under Multiple Policies

Canal Ins. Co. v. Great W. Cas. Co.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133344, 1-2
(D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2013)


In this is a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff Canal Insurance Company  (Canal) sought insurance coverage from the defendant, Great West Casualty Company (Great West), relating to an underlying trucking accident. In its complaint Canal admitted that the Canal policy provides coverage, but alleges that such coverage is excess to the primary coverage provided by the Great West policy. Great West moved for summary judgment, arguing

Continue Reading

CaseWatch: Insurance September 2013 Edition Now Available; Introducing Bad Faith Focus

For a free copy of CaseWatch: Insuranceplease click here.

For a free copy of our new complement to CaseWatch: Insurance, Bad Faith Focus, please click here.

If you would like to receive future editions of CaseWatch: Insurance and Bad Faith Focus directly by email, please contact Sarah Delaney at [email protected].…

Continue Reading

Cases for the September 2013 Edition of CaseWatch: Insurance and Bad Faith Focus

Cases provided courtesy of LexisNexis.

CaseWatch: Insurance Cases

Admiral Ins. Co. v. Shah & Associates

Admiral Insurance Company v. Marsh

Alabama Gas v Travelers

Aleman v. Ace Am. Ins. Co.,

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri

Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Whittington Law Associates, PLLC

Automax Hyundai South, L.L.C. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Ba v. HSBC USA, Inc.

California Ass’n of Rural Health Clinica; Avenal Community Health Center v. Douglas

City of San Buenaventura v. Ins. Co.

Colonial Oil Industries, Inc. v. Indian Harbor

Continue Reading

Cases for the July 2013 Edition of CaseWatch: Insurance

Cases provided courtesy of LexisNexis.

Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co.

Ali v Federal

Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Paszko Masonry, Inc

Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v. Paszko Masonry, Inc.

Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,

CGS Indus. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.

Colonial Oil Industries, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.

Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co.

Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. v. Holmes Murphy & Associates, Inc.

Hackstaff Law Group, LLC v. Hartford Cas.

Continue Reading

It’s Only Temporary: Employee Hired to Meet Short-Term Workload Conditions on Indefinite Basis Is “Temporary Worker” Under Policy

Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. True Plastics, Inc.
(Mass. Ct. App. July 10, 2013)

A Massachusetts appellate court recently held that the phrase “short-term workload conditions” as used in a liability policy’s definition of “temporary worker” was unambiguous and could include workers hired on an indefinite basis.

The claimant was injured while operating a molding machine at the insured’s plant. The claimant was not an employee of the insured company (a manufacturer of plastic components), but rather had been assigned to work at the insured …

Continue Reading

California Cuts To Rural Healthcare Services Violate Medicaid Act

California Ass’n of Rural Health Clinica; Avenal Community Health Center v. Douglas et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 5, 2013

California recently enacted legislation that eliminates coverage for certain healthcare services in under-served rural areas to help curb the State’s budgetary woes. Specifically, the legislation cut coverage for adult dental, podiatry, optometry and chiropractic services in rural areas. The court ruled that eliminating coverage for such programs would be in conflict with the Medicaid Act and that the legislation …

Continue Reading