Sunday, February 17, 2013

Insurance, commercial-residential property, right to indemnity, and oregano-provolone-wild boar fajitas



Insurance -- Automobile liability -- Duty to defend -- Action by one insurer against another insurer alleging that defendant breached its duty to defend plaintiff's insureds in a personal injury action, and seeking indemnification for attorney's fees and costs expended in defending its insureds -- Anti-subrogation rule -- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff insurer on claim that defendant breached its duty to defend plaintiff's insureds in personal injury action against plaintiff's insureds and defendant's insured, who contracted with plaintiff's insureds for provision of trucking services and who, as part of the subcontract, agreed to maintain policy of automobile liability insurance which would be primary and further agreed to defend, indemnify, and hold plaintiff's insureds harmless for claims, damages, and losses arising out of negligent acts or omissions -- Anti-subrogation rule did not apply where there was a specific and contractual obligation of indemnification in favor of plaintiff's insureds that shifted exposure from plaintiff, leaving defendant with the primary obligation to defend actions arising out of its insured's negligence
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AEQUICAP INSURANCE COMPANY, PATCO TRANSPORT, INC. AND TAMPA BAY TRUCKING, INC., Appellees. 4th District.


Insurance -- Claim against insurance company for damage to insured home caused by burglary -- Trial court erred in dismissing complaint for failure of plaintiff to file a petition in probate to determine her own capacity -- Appellate attorney's fees -- Persistence of insurer and its counsel in arguing that insured was required to seek a guardian for herself as condition of continuing action was frivolous where insured had executed a durable power of attorney in favor of her son -- Insurer and its counsel should be equally responsible for insured's attorney's fees in prosecuting appeal
MAXIMILIANA ALBELO, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN OAK INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District.


Insurance -- Commercial-residential property insurance -- Notice of loss -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment finding that insured condominium association which gave notice to insurer five years after hurricane that property had sustained damage in hurricane failed to give timely notice of loss -- When an insurance contract contains a provision requiring prompt notice of loss, insured must give notice of loss that implicates a potential claim without waiting for the full extent of damages to become apparent -- Trial court erred in entering summary judgment finding that insurer was prejudiced by late notice, as issue of prejudice is question of fact for jury
1500 CORAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District.


Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.   7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket: 11-2500         Opinion Date: February 13, 2013
Judge: Posner
Areas of Law: Contracts, Injury Law, Insurance Law         
 The Hancock Center in Chicago is managed by Shorenstein (several related companies). Shorenstein hired an architectural firm, MCA, to design and oversee renovation of windows and exterior walls; MCA hired a general contractor. In 2002, a scaffold fell from the 42nd floor in a high wind and killed three people in cars, severely injuring several others. Shorenstein settled with plaintiffs in 2006 for a total of $8.7 million. MCA’s contract with Shorenstein had required MCA to obtain liability insurance covering the owner, Shorenstein, and any other party specified by the owner. MCA obtained the required insurance policy from AMICO, covering “any person or organization to whom [MCA is] obligated by virtue of a written contract.” There was a dispute concerning which Shorenstein entities were covered. Shorenstein was awarded $959,866.02 by the district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court erred in apportioning the award among the Shorenstein entities. The court rejected AMICO’s arguments that the claim was barred by an exclusion of coverage for injuries “due to rendering or failure to render any professional service” by an insured and that Shorenstein gave up its right to indemnity by AMICO by asking its other insurer for indemnification.


The Law Lady.  For more info about us, click here.  To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, HEALTH & INSURANCE, or 11th CIRCUIT Recent Decisions of Interest.