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.
Posts
