Hutchinson v. Liberty Life Insurance Co. Where the mortgage life insurance policy at issue excluded benefits for an injury resulting from the insured’s being “under the influence of any narcotic,” the exclusion does not apply in this case in which the insured was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of his accidental death
Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant
Pulliam v. Travelers Indemnity Co. : Although it excludes coverage for “property damage”, a directors and officers (D&O) endorsement issued to a property owners’ association (POA) may still provide coverage with respect to plaintiffs’ claims that the POA failed to establish a reserve fund and breached a fiduciary duty to warn of the inherent conflict in developer-controlled POAs.
Barker v. Washington National Insurance Co. Plaintiff’s “Limited Benefit Health Coverage” policy only promised to pay expenses he “incurred.” Once plaintiff became a Medicare recipient, he did not “incur” the hospital’s usual fees; he was only legally obligated to pay the amount the hospital agreed to charge a Medicare recipient.
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Columbia Harbison LLCIn Endorsement 3 to the parties’ title insurance policy, the plaintiff-insurer agreed, with regard to a parking easement, to insure “against loss or damage resulting from an Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction requiring the removal of all or a portion of the structures” designated in the defendant-insured’s “Plans.”
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. Walters Although defendant’s stepdaughter owned the house in which he lived, he bought homeowner’s insurance for the house as “owner-occupied”; furthermore, the stepdaughter evicted defendant (and her mother) 10 days before the property was damaged by fire.
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. : Although Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. only insured the contractor for the beginning -- only 13 of 84 buildings -- of a building project, Harleysville must defend the contractor in an underlying lawsuit that alleges water intrusion in all of the project’s buildings
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. : In an underlying lawsuit filed by a homeowners’ association against the contractor who built a resort, multiple insurers may be responsible for different damages, depending on their coverage periods.
Assurance Co. of America v. Penn-America Insurance Co. Even though both parties insured a contractor during different years when progressive property damage was allegedly resulting from his work, when the plaintiff-insurer undertook the defense of the insured contractor, it did no more than what it believed it was obligated to do under the terms of its contract and acted, not for the defendant-insurer, but for the insured.
United Financial Casualty Co. v. Butler Where plaintiff issued a commercial auto policy to insure the defendant-repo men’s tow truck, plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify the repo men in a lawsuit filed by a homeowner after (1) the repo men came to his property to repossess someone else’s car, (2) the homeowner brandished a shotgun and told the repo men to leave, (3) the repo men called the police, and (4) the repo men sat in the insured tow truck while police tased the homeowner until he passed out.
Next Page »