Goldberg Segalla, Author at The Insurance & Reinsurance Report

March 20, 2019 Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability

Supreme Court of Georgia Raises the Bar for Bad Faith Claimants

In a long-anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court of Georgia clarified the state’s law on the prerequisites for an insured to sue its insurance carrier for bad faith failure to settle. The court asked the parties to address a specific question: does an insurer’s duty to settle arise only when an injured party presents a valid offer to settle within the insured’s policy limits or, even absent such an offer, does a duty arise when the insurer knows or reasonably should know that settlement within policy …

South Carolina High Court Allows Malpractice Claim by Insurer Against its Assigned Defense Counsel

Early March, in a narrow, carefully worded opinion, a divided Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that a liability insurer may sue an attorney it retained to defend its insured where the attorney’s breach of its duty to the insured proximately causes the insurer damage. The decision adds South Carolina to the growing list of states that recognize a malpractice cause of action by an insurer against its assigned defense counsel. See Sentry Insurance Co. v. Maybank Law Firm, LLC, — S.E.2d —, 2019 WL 1119977, at …

March 15, 2019 Duty to Defend

Wisconsin Top Court Limits “Knowing Violation” Exclusion By Looking Beyond Facts Alleged in Complaint

In a decision that could expand the scope of the duty to defend, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a “knowing violation of the rights of another” exclusion did not apply even though the facts alleged suggested that it should. The court looked beyond the four corners of the complaint, which alleged willful and intentional conduct, and held that the insurer owed a duty to defend because some causes of action asserted in the complaint could potentially be satisfied by non-intentional conduct.

In West …

March 11, 2019 Other Insurance

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Course on Trigger for Malicious Prosecution Claims

An Illinois Appellate Court established a new rule for when malicious prosecution occurs and triggers coverage under a liability policy. In Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, the court determined that the triggering event for malicious prosecution coverage is the claimant’s exoneration, rather than the initiation of the alleged malicious prosecution. The rule established in Sanders is in direct contrast with a number of Illinois decisions, including several in the past few years that had held that the commencement of the malicious prosecution was …

March 11, 2019 Automobile Coverage

New Jersey Appellate Court Prohibits Unlicensed Drivers From Collecting PIP Benefits

The New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled that an unlicensed driver may not recover PIP benefits for their own medical expenses sustained in an auto accident, even if they had permission from the vehicle’s owner to drive the vehicle.

In Blanco-Sanchez v. Personal Service Insurance Company, A-5393-16 (Feb. 28, 2019), plaintiff, who was the daughter of the named insured, was injured in an accident that occurred while the plaintiff was moving her mother’s car to avoid getting a parking ticket. Her mother had asked …

March 7, 2019 First Party Property

Denied Times Two: Prejudicial Late Notice and Contractual Limitation Period Both, Separately, Doom First Party Claim

Finding the prejudice from the insured’s late notice was manifest, a federal district court in Connecticut dismissed, with prejudice, a first-party coverage action brought by an insured against her homeowners’ insurer, Allstate Insurance Company. Ruling that the insured’s reporting of the claim to the insurer 14 months after the loss was a material breach of the policy’s notice provision that prejudiced the insurer, the court also concluded that the insured’s action was separately barred by the policy’s 18-month suit limitation provision. See Discuillo v. Allstate …

February 27, 2019 General / Industry News

Fourth Circuit Holds that Insured Must Strictly Comply with Notice Conditions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, applying South Carolina law, recently held that an insurer had no duty to indemnify its insured for a default judgment on late notice grounds because the court found that the insured’s forwarding to the insurer’s agent of a notice of representation letter by the claimant did not constitute notice to the insurer of a lawsuit later filed by the claimant. Founders Ins. Co. v. Richard Ruth’s Bar & Grill LLC, No. 17-1282, 2019 WL 852137 …

January 29, 2019 Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability

Not So Fast – Pennsylvania’s Bad Faith Statute Is Not A Blank Check for Fees

The Third Circuit recently held that a jury bad faith damage award does not automatically entitle a successful claimant to an award of attorney’s fees under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute. In affirming the district court’s denial of an award of attorney’s fees, the Third Circuit formally endorsed the view that where a fee-shifting statute provides a court with discretion to award attorney’s fees, such discretion includes the ability to deny a fee request that is outrageously excessive. In doing so, the Third Circuit joins the …

January 23, 2019 Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability / Other Insurance

NY Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for “Consequential Damages” in Coverage Litigation

The Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court, First Department, recently overturned a trial court’s dismissal of an insured’s claim for consequential damages on a pre-answer motion to dismiss. While the decision sheds light on the degree of specificity required at the pleading stage to sustain an insured’s claim for consequential damages, it does little to clarify the level of proof required to prevail on such claim at trial.

The coverage dispute among the parties in D.K. Property, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance …

January 22, 2019 Professional Liability

Vicarious Liability and Additional Insured Coverage: Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Factual Allegations Sufficient to Trigger Defense Duty

The Appellate Court of Illinois recently considered whether an underlying complaint against an a general contractor (additional insured), filed by the estate of an independent contractor/subcontractor’s employee who was killed in a job site accident, triggered the defense of the general contractor under the subcontractor’s liability policy. The subcontract at issue contained the standard additional insurance requirements. The court first decided that the liability policy’s additional insured endorsement did not protect an additional insured for its own negligence; and the issue was whether a duty …