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.  

Notice of claim, insurance coverage, and roasted quail with cranberry and port wine sauce and grilled squash

Insurance -- Property -- Notice of claim -- Untimely notice -- Trial court erred in finding that insured's untimely notice of claim, served twenty-nine months after alleged loss, barred claim as matter of law -- Proper inquiry is whether insurer was prejudiced by untimely notice -- Remand for reconsideration of insurer's motion for summary judgment and insured's response for purposes of prejudice analysis
KINGS BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 4th District.


Timely Notice: DELAY IN NOTICE DOOMS PROPERTY OWNER'S COVERAGE CLAIM, 2ND CIRCUIT SAYS, Pfeffer v. Harleysville Group, 8 No. 16 Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith 11, Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith December 11, 2012
An apartment building owner who notified his insurance company more than two years after he learned a construction job had damaged his building failed to give his insurer timely notice of his claim, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed. Although the owner notified his broker nearly immediately after learning of the damage, "notice to a broker is not notice to the carrier" under New York law, a three-judge appeals court panel said in a written opinion.


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. 

Insurance, restraint of trade, restraint of reproductive rights and fresh rosemary bread with mango chive and cucumber chutney

Insurance -- Condominiums -- Assignment of claims -- Neither Declaration of Condominium nor Articles of Incorporation prohibited Association from assigning potential insurance claims for hurricane damage to former unit owners -- Trial court erred in dismissing former unit owners' claims against insurer -- Trial court did not abuse discretion in certifying unit owners as a class
RAMON CASTELLANOS, ET AL., Appellants, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellees. 3rd District.

Workers' compensation -- Compensable accidents -- Fall on employer's premises -- Where it was undisputed that claimant was actively engaged in work-related activity at time of accident, and there were no competing causes of accidental injury, claimant's work activity was de facto the major cause -- Judge of compensation claims erred in finding that claimant failed to establish that work performed within her employment caused her injury
VALERIE WALKER, Appellant, v. BROADVIEW ASSISTED LIVING and CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., Appellees. 1st District.

Criminal Acts: SANDUSKY'S HOMEOWNERS POLICY DOESN'T COVER SEX-ABUSE DEFENSE COSTS, INSURER SAYS, State Farm v. Sandusky, 22 No. 43 Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage 2, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage August 3, 2012 State Farm has asked a federal court to rule that it has no obligation under Jerry Sandusky's homeowners policy to cover defense costs in criminal and civil sex abuse suits against the former Penn State assistant football coach. State Farm has provided homeowners coverage to Sandusky and his wife since 1985, the insurer says in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The policy, renewed annually, mainly covered the couple's property

Expert Testimony: EXPERT TESTIMONY ISN'T NEEDED TO SHOW BAD FAITH, 11TH CIRCUIT SAYS, Tardiff v. Geico Indem. Co., 8 No. 7 Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith 2, Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith August 7, 2012 The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the exclusion of an insurance consultant's expert testimony from a suit against Geico Indemnity Co., finding that Florida juries do not need experts to determine if an insurance company has acted in bad faith. The three-judge panel said a layperson could "decide whether Geico acted in bad faith without the assistance of expert testimony" in a case in which Geico failed to settle a claim and exposed its clients to a $1.1 million judgment.

  Restraint of Trade: AETNA SUED FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE, Kerner v. Aetna Health Plans of Cal., 8 No. 7 Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith 11, Westlaw Journal Insurance Bad Faith August 7, 2012 A California plastic surgeon has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging health insurance giant Aetna bars doctors from participating in its plans if they refer patients to out-of-network providers. Marc M. Kerner, who practices in Northridge, filed the suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Aetna Health Plans of California Inc., Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. and their related companies. The complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200

Contraception: MISSOURI GOVERNOR VETOES BILL BANNING MANDATORY BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE, 22 No. 43 Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage 9, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage August 3, 2012 Missouri's Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation July 12 that would have expanded moral and religious exemptions from insurance policies covering birth control. Drafted by Republican lawmakers, the bill stated that Missouri employers and insurers should not be compelled to provide coverage for abortion, contraception or sterilization if such medical procedures run contrary to their "religious beliefs or moral convictions." SB 749

Health Care Reform (Contraception): FEDERAL JUDGE TOSSES STATES' CHALLENGE TO OBAMA CONTRACEPTION RULE, State v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 22 No. 43 Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage 10, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage August 3, 2012 A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by seven attorneys general who sought to block a rule from the Obama administration's new health care reform law that requires employers to provide contraception coverage for workers. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning sued on behalf of six other states, three Catholic nonprofit institutions and two Catholic individuals, alleging the rule violates the rights of employers and religious organizations that oppose the use of contraceptives

Reproductive Rights: PLANNED PARENTHOOD SUES ARIZONA OVER MEDICAID DEFUNDING LAW, Planned Parenthood Ariz. v. Betlach, 22 No. 43 Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage 11, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage August 3, 2012 Planned Parenthood and three of its patients have sued the state of Arizona in a bid to overturn a law that bans family planning organizations that perform abortions from participating in Arizona's Medicaid program and from receiving public funds. The law, signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in May, applies to any health care provider that is eligible for federal funding under a Medicaid regulation, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(1)(2)(B). Scheduled to take effect Aug. 2, HB 2800 excludes cases

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