Quantcast
Home / Opinion Digest / Insurance

Insurance

Feed Subscription

Insurance – Auto – UIM – ‘Driver’ & ‘Household Resident’ – Named Insured’s Fiancé – Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations – Common Law Marriage (access required)

Bell v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-041-14, 15 pp.) (Jean Hoefer Toal, Ch.J.) (Costa Pleicones, J., concurring in the result only without separate opinion) Appealed from Horry County Circuit Court (J. Michael Baxley, J.) On writ of ...

Read More »

Insurance – Homeowners – Sexual Assault – Joint Obligations Provision – First Impression – Declaratory Judgment (access required)

Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Tilmon (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-070-14, 14 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 1:13-cv-00690; D.S.C. Holding: The “joint obligations” provision in plaintiff’s homeowners’ insurance policy makes one insured’s acts binding on the other insureds. Even though defendant Davis ...

Read More »

Insurance – Auto – UIM – Parents’ Vehicles – Separate Policy – Exclusion (access required)

Carter v. Standard Fire Insurance Co A son who lived with his parents and was injured while a passenger in his own car – which he owned with his mother but insured with a different insurance company than the company that insured his parents’ three cars – may stack the underinsured motorist coverage from his parents’ policy onto the UIM coverage from his policy, despite an exclusion in the parents’ policy.

Read More »

Insurance – Auto – UIM — Domestic Relations – Common Law Marriage – Rebutted Presumption – No Stacking (access required)

Motsinger v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co Although plaintiff showed that she and William Workman exchanged rings in a family-only ceremony and then held themselves out to friends as husband and wife, the presumption in favor of the couple’s common law marriage was rebutted by evidence that they did not intend to be married:

Read More »

Insurance – Management Liability Policy – Exclusion — Breach of Express Contract – SSA Representative Payee (access required)

Singletary v. Beazley Insurance Co. The parties’ management liability policy expressly excluded coverage for “damages representing amounts allegedly owed” under an express contract. Plaintiffs had to complete a Form SSA-11 in order to become a representative payee, and plaintiffs do not dispute that Form SSA-11 created a contract between plaintiff Family Assistance Management Services (FAMS) and the Social Security Administration, under which FAMS agreed to reimburse the SSA for any misused funds. Therefore, when the SSA demanded repayment of funds that FAMS did not use appropriately as part of its duties as a representative payee, the claim for repayment was under an express written contract.

Read More »
Scroll To Top