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

In Dewsnup v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, SC S057895 (September 16, 2010), the Oregon Supreme Court considered “what is a ‘roof’ within the meaning of plaintiffs’ homeowners’ insurance policy.”  The policy excluded coverage for loss resulting from water damage.  However, the exclusion contained an exception for loss to the interior and contents of a dwelling, caused by water damage when “the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof . . . and the rain . . . enters through this opening.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Northwest Pipe Company v. RLI Insurance Company, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83053 (D. Or., August 11, 2010), the court concluded the insurer’s duty to defend under an umbrella policy was triggered even where all other underlying coverage for all possible periods had not been exhausted. A federal magistrate had found the policy issued by RLI included an exhaustion provision and the policy required “horizontal exhaustion of all underlying policies before RLI’s duty to defend was triggered.” Id. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In Holden v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 2010 Wash. LEXIS 721 (September 9, 2010), the Washington Supreme Court held that because an “actual cash value” (“ACV”) provision in a Broad Form Renters Package Policy was ambiguous, it must be read in favor of the insured to include consideration of Washington State sales tax in calculating the “fair market value” (“FMV”) of damaged property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two recent California decisions hold that the parties must lie in the beds they made – in one case preventing the policyholder from contesting a settlement , the other case preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from another allegedly responsible party.

In Village Northridge HOA v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 10 C.D.O.S. 11321 (2010) (another decision following the Northridge earthquake in Southern California), the California Supreme Court held that the way to avoid a settlement is through rescission (which pursuant to statute does not require immediate tender back of the consideration received in settlement). Civil Code § 1693 provides that the party seeking rescission can agree to later restore the consideration as long as doing so does not substantially prejudice the other settled party. Restoration of the consideration can be a condition in the judgment.

However, in that case, the HOA proceeded on an alternative basis - "affirm and sue."  This theory, California’s highest court held, was not supported by California law because of the provisions in the settlement agreement. Thus, the HOA had to live with the settlement it made.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks