“Serious Injury” Exclusion in NY SUM Endorsement Enforceable
In a much anticipated decision, the New York Court of Appeals has resolved a conflict between NY Ins. Law §3420(f)(2), which does not expressly impose a “serious injury” requirement as a condition to...
View ArticleNo-Fault Carrier Precluded from Contesting Assignment for Failure to Timely...
In Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (NY Nov. 20, 2007), the New York Court of Appeals has held that an insurer’s failure to timely request verification of a patient’s...
View ArticleMaine Court Holds That Emotional Distress Claims Trigger Additional BI Limits
Thank goodness that Maine is a relatively small state, as its Law Court seems to have a boundless appetite for finding insurance coverage. In the latest defeat for insurers, the court ruled in Ryder v....
View ArticlePolicyholder Struck By Bicyclist after Parking Car Not Entitled to PIP Benefits
Reversing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff policyholder, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that a plaintiff’s injuries from being struck by a bicyclist as she crossed the...
View ArticleMontana Supreme Court: 38-Month Delay in Notification of Claim is Late Notice
The Montana Supreme Court this week ruled that a policy issued to a corporation provided no coverage to an officer of the corporation and that the officer’s 38-month delay in notifying the insurer was...
View ArticleCurtailing Abuses to the “Reasonable Belief” Exclusion in the Texas Auto Policy
Last Friday, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas resolved a question of first impression in Texas when it determined that the standard Texas Auto Policy’s “reasonable belief”...
View ArticleNew York Court of Appeals Affirms Trigger of SUM Coverage
In a 5-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals held in Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 04300 (June 4, 2009) that Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists (“SUM”)...
View ArticleBreach of the Duty To Cooperate or Not…
The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized that a cooperation clause prevents collusion between the insured and injured and enables an insurer to prepare its defense to a claim. M.F.A. Mutual Ins. Co....
View ArticleGeorgia’s Uninsured Motorist Statute Does Not Supersede Excess Policies’...
In Coker v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, 825 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that Georgia’s uninsured motorist (UM) statute did not supersede the vertical...
View ArticleWashington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act Does Not Create a Cause of Action for...
Today, in Isidoro Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, the Washington Supreme Court held the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) did not “create[] a new and independent private...
View Article
