Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Doscher’s Super Markets In a dispute over a personal relationship, a co-worker shot the defendant-employee while they were in the defendant-employer’s break room. When the injured employee sued the employer for negligence, the “employer’s liability” exclusion in the plaintiff-insurer’s commercial general liability policy did not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend and indemnify the employer.
Davis v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. In concluding that plaintiff was not disabled, the defendant-plan administrator relied on the internally inconsistent report of a doctor who never examined plaintiff, reviewed her medical records, and cherry-picked information that supported the administrator’s position while ignoring the bulk of plaintiff’s medical records.
Jessco, Inc. v. Builders Mutual Insurance Co. S.C. law permits an insured to recover attorney’s fees when the insured wins a declaratory judgment stating that its insurer breached its duty to defend. The court logically extends this case law to encompass attorney’s fees incurred by the insured when it successfully defends such a judgment on appeal.
Newman v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. Pursuant to a long-term care policy, the defendant-insurer recognized that its policyholder was suffering from a covered condition and was admitted to a covered assisted-living facility. The insurer breached the policy when it denied coverage because the policyholder did not ultimately receive the intended degree of care.
Delly v. First Acceptance Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-074-12, 8 pp.) (Cameron McGowan Currie, J.) 3:11-cv-02226; D.S.C.
Holding: Plaintiff was a passenger in a car whose driver’s insurance was cancelled effective Dec. 31, 2006 at 12:01 a.m. Plaintiff was injured in a wreck that happened in South Carolina around 12:30 a.m.
Builders Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lacey Construction Co. A builder’s commercial general liability insurance policy may cover the cost of repairing sink holes in a resident’s yard if the builder’s faulty construction of a retaining wall led to the sink holes, but the policy does not cover any defects in the wall itself.
Builders Mutual Insurance Co. v. Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc. The commercial general liability policy that the plaintiff-insurer provided to its insured contractor afforded coverage for copyright infringement in the contractor’s advertisements; however, the underlying action between the defendant-architect and the insured contractor was based on copyright infringement through the contractor’s construction of a house. 17 U.S.C. § 120 exempts photographs of copyrighted architectural works, such as the photograph of the completed building on the contractor’s website.
Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v. Albemarle County School Board An Albemarle County school board’s failure to pay its school bus drivers and transportation assistants overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act was a “wrongful act” under the school board’s commercial insurance policy, and the policy does not cover wage payments but should cover liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, the 4th Circuit says.
Baiden & Associates, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. The complaint cites the Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London policy by policy number, coverage period and coverage limits; the plaintiff-contractor attached to its complaint a certificate of insurance which reflected certain key information about the Lloyds policy; the contractor alleged that, under the insurance policies at issue, including the Lloyds policy, the duty to defend was triggered by the allegations in a state-court complaint that the insured subcontractors’ work resulted in property damage; and the complaint recited language from the policies at issue, including the Lloyds policy. Therefore, the contractor’s complaint is sufficient to advise Lloyds of the event being sued upon.
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Cooper The defendant-insured says he told his insurance agent that he used the otherwise vacant nightclub building for occasional events; however, the agent says the insured told him the building was vacant, so that is what he noted on the insurance application. There is a jury question as to whether the insured provided false information on the insurance application.
Next Page »
