National Insurance Law Forum

National Insurance Law Forum

Published By The Attorneys of the National Insurance Law Forum

Category Archives: Auto Liability Coverage

Subscribe to Auto Liability Coverage RSS Feed

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act Does Not Create a Cause of Action for Regulatory Violations

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage, Liability Coverage, News, Recent Cases, Uncategorized
Today, in Isidoro Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, the Washington Supreme Court held the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) did not “create[] a new and independent private cause of action for violation” of  the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) “in the absence of any unreasonable denial of coverage or benefits.” This case arose… Continue Reading

Georgia’s Uninsured Motorist Statute Does Not Supersede Excess Policies’ Vertical Exhaustion Requirements

Posted in Additional Insured, Auto Liability Coverage, Bad Faith/Extra Contractual, Excess and Umbrella Insurance
In Coker v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, 825 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that Georgia’s uninsured motorist (UM) statute did not supersede the vertical exhaustion requirements contained in the defendants’ excess policies. In this case, plaintiff Gary Coker was driving a truck owned by his employer, Ansco & Associates… Continue Reading

Breach of the Duty To Cooperate or Not…

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage, Duty to Defend, Recent Cases
The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized that a cooperation clause prevents collusion between the insured and injured and enables an insurer to prepare its defense to a claim. M.F.A. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 66 Ill. 2d 492, 496 (1977).  It has also acknowledged that: “Any condition in the policy requiring cooperation on the part… Continue Reading

New York Court of Appeals Affirms Trigger of SUM Coverage

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
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… Continue Reading

Curtailing Abuses to the “Reasonable Belief” Exclusion in the Texas Auto Policy

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
Last Friday, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas resolved a question of first impression in Texas when it determined that the standard Texas Auto Policy’s “reasonable belief” exclusion, which is inherently a subjective test of what the driver thought about his or her permission to operate the vehicle,  requires an objective test of… Continue Reading

Montana Supreme Court: 38-Month Delay in Notification of Claim is Late Notice

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
The Montana Supreme Court this week ruled that a policy issued to a corporation provided no coverage to an officer of the corporation and that the officer’s 38-month delay in notifying the insurer was late notice. The case, Lee v. Great Divide Insurance Co., involved an automobile accident between an uninsured driver and Lee.  Lee was driving… Continue Reading

Policyholder Struck By Bicyclist after Parking Car Not Entitled to PIP Benefits

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
Reversing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff policyholder, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that a plaintiff’s injuries from being struck by a bicyclist as she crossed the street did not trigger PIP coverage under her auto insurance policy. In this case, the plaintiff had parked her car across the street… Continue Reading

No-Fault Carrier Precluded from Contesting Assignment for Failure to Timely Request Verification

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
In Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (NY Nov. 20, 2007), the New York Court of Appeals has held that an insurer’s failure to timely request verification of a patient’s assignment of first-party no-fault benefits to a hospital rendering services precludes the carrier from contesting the validity of the assignment.… Continue Reading

“Serious Injury” Exclusion in NY SUM Endorsement Enforceable

Posted in Auto Liability Coverage
In a much anticipated decision, the New York Court of Appeals has resolved a conflict between NY Ins. Law §3420(f)(2), which does not expressly impose a “serious injury” requirement as a condition to recovery of un/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits, and Insurance Department Regulation 35-D, which does. In Raffellini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.… Continue Reading