Tenth Circuit Denies General Liability Insurance Coverage for False Billing Claims

In Zurich American Ins. Co. et al. v. O’Hara Regional Center for Rehabilitation, et al., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12913 (10th Cir., June 18, 2008), the Tenth Circuit addressed the question of whether general liability insurance policies trigger a duty to defend false billing claims. The insured, O’Hara Regional Center for Rehabilitation (“O’Hara”) is a long-term care facility in Denver that was licensed by the State of Colorado to provide specialized nursing home care, and provided such care pursuant to agreements with the United States and the State of Colorado under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. After concluding that O’Hara submitted inflated invoices for patient services, the government sued O’Hara under the False Claims Act and state common law, alleging O’Hara “knowingly presented or caused to be presented claims for payment to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, for care, goods or services not rendered, that were inadequate or worthless, or that were rendered in violation of applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines with a nexus to payment.” The government further alleged that O’Hara “‘systematically and routinely understaffed [the facility]’ in violation of the provider agreements.” LEXIS p. 5. O’Hara tendered defense of the suit to its three liability carriers. Two accepted the defense under a reservation of rights, while the third simply denied coverage. Continue Reading...

Fifth Circuit Applies Pollution Exclusion to Explosion Caused by Gas Vapors

Another court has determined that the total pollution exclusion is in fact “total.” In Noble Energy Inc. v. Bituminous Casualty Company, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11757 (5th Cir. June 2, 2008), the court addressed the applicability of a pollution exclusion to bodily injury from an explosion. Workers were disposing of sediment and water from Noble’s petroleum storage tanks from two tanker trucks. Combustible vapors from the sediment and water caused the diesel engines in the truck to race which led to an explosion and fire. The sediment and water waste included gas condensate. Three employees were killed and several others injured. Bituminous Casualty argued that the pollution exclusion in its policy barred coverage for the claims. Continue Reading...

New York U.S. District Court Dismisses Coverage Complaint for Accident at Non-Scheduled Location

In Ten Seventy One Home Corp. v. Liberty Mutual, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47328 (2008), the court granted an insurer’s CR 12(b)(6) motion dismissing another insurer’s complaint seeking a coverage determination for a personal injury claim.

On June 14, 2002, Leonard Hutchings was seriously, severely and permanently injured when Morton Yuter closed an overhead garage door on Hutchings’ head and neck at 3001 Arlington Avenue in the Bronx, New York. Josh Neustein and Ten Seventy One Home Corporation owned 3001 Arlington and used it as an office from which they operated, administered and maintained a number of rental properties in the Bronx and Manhattan.
Continue Reading...

First Circuit Asks Massachusetts SJC To Resolve Allocation Dispute

Last winter, I posted on an oral argument in the First Circuit that presented significant implications for the future of long tail coverage disputes in Massachusetts. Well, be careful what you ask for. In a momentous new opinion, the First Circuit declared that last week that intermediate state appellate opinions were not a clear indicator of what Massachusetts law is on “allocation” and has therefore certified the issue to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. Continue Reading...

Florida Supreme Court Withdraws Opinion On CD Issues

Has there ever been a court that certifies more insurance issues to state courts than today’s Eleventh Circuit? (well, yes, there’s the Fifth Circuit too). Now a state court, after initially answering a question concerning insurance coverage for construction defect claims, has changed its mind and tossed the file back to the federal courts due to a lack of clarity with respect to a key factual question. Continue Reading...

Divided New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Intentional Acts Exclusion

The availability of coverage for negligent supervision claims brought against the parents of troubled teenagers has been a persistent source of litigation and controversy under homeowner's policies.  As courts have increasingly found that independent theories of negligence against parents are an "occurrence" despite the intentional nature of their children's acts, homeowners' insurers have countered with new exclusions for intentional or criminal acts.  In true Clintonian fashion, the effect of such exclusions sometimes turns on whether the exclusion applies to the intentional or criminal acts or "an," "any" or "the insured.

Continue Reading...

Florida Supreme Court Punts on Construction Defect Case

Our readers will forigive a Massachusetts lawyer for questioning the counting skills of  the Florida Supreme Court.  In a recent opinion, however, the state Supreme Court has again discounted the value of precedent, throwing a certified issue Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Pozzi Window Co., No. SCO6-779 (Fla. June 12, 2008)back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit due to a factual dispute that somehow eluded the Supreme Court in its original opinion last December.

Oon  December 20, 2007 opinion, , the Florida Supreme Court had ruled that claims brought against a contractor for water damage caused by the defective installation of windows were not covered since CGL policies do not cover the cost of repair and replacement of defective work.   The court contrasted its opinion with its December 20, 2008 opinion in JSUB , in which it held that  there would be coverage for CD losses.

On June 12, however, the Florida Supreme Court econsidered its earlier opinon and  ruled  thatt it was unable to answer the Eleventh Circuit’s certified question owing to the fact that the court had failed to clarify whether the water damage resulted from defective installation, for which there would not be coverage, or defects in the installed windows themselves. In keeping with its earlier opinion in JSUB, the Supreme Court noted that if the windows were not defective prior to their installation, coverage would exist for the cost of repair or replacement of the windows because there was physical injury to tangible property (the windows) caused by their defective installation by a subcontractor. However, a different result would follow if the windows were in a defective condition before being installed and the damage to the completed project was therefore caused by defective windows rather than faulty installation alone.

Sanctions Available For Insurer's Failure to Attend Court-Ordered Mediation

In Robert Campagnone v. Enjoyable Pools & Spa Service & Repairs, Inc. (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [08 C.D.O.S. 6579], the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, denied a motion for sanctions against an insurer for failing to attend a court-ordered mediation, and against a party and its attorneys for failing to notify the insurer of its obligation to attend.  However, the court announced that parties and their counsel will be sanctioned in future cases if they fail to put an insurer with “potential insurance coverage” on notice of the insurer’s obligation to send a representative with full settlement authority to court-ordered mediations. The court also warned insurers with “potential insurance coverage” that they can be sanctioned if they fail to send a representative to the mediation.

The court based its holding on the Third Appellate District’s local rules include Local Rule 1(d)(9) which provides that all parties and their counsel of record must attend all mediation sessions in person and with full settlement authority.  The rule also provides that, if a party has “potential insurance coverage applicable to any of the issues in dispute, a representative of each insurance carrier whose policy may apply also must attend all mediation sessions in person, with full settlement authority...”

The Court reasoned it has authority to impose such sanctions under the Appellate Rules of the California Rules of Court, Rule 8.276(a) and Local Rule 1(g). In addition, the Court explained that sanctions can be awarded against insurers because they are considered parties to a mediation.

Other Districts' and specific court's rules should be consulted to determine whether this ruling will have application outside of the Third Appellate District.

Late Notice Legislation Submitted in New York

The ghost of Eliot Spitzer has been sighted roaming the state capitol in Albany!

 In 2007, the New York legislature hurriedly approved legislation that would have done away with New York’s traditional rule that the breach of a condition to coverage waves a policyholder’s right to recovery even if the insured’s untimely notice has not materially prejudiced the insurer. After some hesitation, Governor Spitzer vetoed the legislation, declaring in his veto statement that the issue was too important to be decided in such an abrupt manner.


Spitzer has since departed the scene but his successor, David Patterson, last week submitted a proposal to the legislature that largely embodies the proposals in the legislation that Spitzer vetoed. If enacted into law, this new bill would (1) allow third-party claimants to bring declaratory judgment actions against insurers in cases where an insurer has denied coverage on the basis of late notice; and (2) for the first time imposes a requirement of prejudice in order to avoid coverage on the basis of late notice.

Continue Reading...

Petition for Review Denied in Qualcomm

The California Supreme Court denied review in Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 184 (reported earlier in this blog). In Qualcomm, the California appellate ruled that an insured which settles with its primary insurers for less than policy limits, cannot collect from an excess insurance policy that provided it did not attach until the underlying insurers under each underlying policy “have paid or have been held liable to pay the full amount of the Underlying Limit of Liability.” The Qualcomm case is certain to impact settlements between insureds and primary insurers where there is a risk of exposure excess of primary limits. The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant review is a further example of the literal approach of the California appellate courts in interpreting plain language in insurance contracts.

Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Considered To Determine If Ambiguity Exists In Contract

In Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance Company (2008) __ Cal.App.4th __ (08 CDOS 6885), the Second District (Los Angeles) appellate court reiterated California law that in order to determine whether a contract is ambiguous, the court must consider on a provisional basis extrinsic evidence to determine if there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the contract. Although this case was in the context of a construction contract, these same rules apply to interpretation of insurance contracts.

Continue Reading...