National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Coverage, Bad Faith Litigation

In Kassis v. The Ohio Casualty Company, 2009 NY Slip Op 05207 (June 25, 2009), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a provision in a lease agreement requiring insurance for the “mutual benefit” of landlord and tenant was sufficient to trigger coverage under the terms of a blanket additional insured endorsement extending coverage to “any person or organization whom [the named insured is] required to name as an additional insured on this policy under a written contract or agreement.” The Court answered in the affirmative.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In P.J.P. Mechanical Corporation v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 04984 (June 18, 2009), New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, held that an insurer has no duty to defend its insured against an affirmative defense based on a claim of offset raised in the responsive pleadings. Imposing such a duty, held the court, was counter to long-established business practices and would lead to uncertainty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Evanston Insurance Company v. OEA, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10921 (May 21, 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of “notice” under a claims-made policy. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of California, holding that, under a claims-made policy, the insured’s unreasonable subjective belief that a complaint does not evidence an intent to hold the insured liable for injuries will not create a genuine factual dispute as to when the insured’ received “notice” of the claim where the complaint clearly names the insured and specifically alleges that the insured is liable for injuries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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”) coverage is not triggered where payments to multiple insureds reduces the liability limits of the tortfeasor’s policy. Thus, SUM benefits were unavailable to co-occupants of a covered vehicle.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Rhiner v. Red Shield Insurance Co., issued May 27, 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an individual whom an insured hired directly, and who filed a workers’ compensation claim against the insured for on-the-job injuries is an “employee” or a “temporary worker” within the meaning of the policy. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insured, and remanded for entry of judgment for insurer holding that because the insured hired the individual directly, and not with the aid of a third party, the individual was not a “temporary worker” within the meaning of the policy, and the policy did not provide coverage of his claims against the insured.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks