APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Washington, D.C. A highway construction subcontract required the sign subcontractor to perform “mobilization (install, maintain and remove work zone signs)”; however, the subcontract did not define “work zone signs.” There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subcontractor was required to install signs warning of uneven pavement.
Grimsley v. Government Employees Insurance Co. Because plaintiff was given an opportunity to reject UIM coverage or to select different coverage limits, there was no total failure on the part of GEICO to inform plaintiff of available coverage, and plaintiff was not entitled to $1,000,000 in UIM coverage at the time of his injury.
Reversed and remanded.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Erie Insurance Co. In this subrogation action, the plaintiff-insurer has no greater rights than its insureds. Since plaintiff filed this action more than three years after the accident from which it arose, plaintiff’s claim is time-barred.
We affirm the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co. v. Rikard Where the plaintiff-insurer mailed defendant’s decedents an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage selection/rejection form several times, but where the decedents never filled out or returned the form, the mailing of the form was sufficient to preclude a holding that a total failure to notify occurred. We extend the reasoning of Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Martinson, 701 S.E.2d 390 (2010), to questions of underinsured motorist coverage.
Cinoman v. University of North Carolina There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the plaintiff-physician was an independent contractor or an employee of the defendant-university hospital and as to whether or not plaintiff was required to have his own medical malpractice insurance.
We reverse summary judgment for defendants.
Universal Insurance Co. v. Burton Farm Development Co. In an underlying lawsuit, a subcontractor alleges that the defendant-developer’s project manager defamed the subcontractor and intentionally caused a breakdown of the contractual relationship between the subcontractor and the developer. Even though the project manager’s commercial lines insurance policy – which names the developer as an additional insured — contains an exclusion for injury “done by or at the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity,” since the policy treats each insured separately, the insurer is required to defend the developer against the subcontractor’s claims against it.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lynn Even though the plaintiff-insurer showed that the insured’s son intended to pull the trigger of his gun, the insurer failed to show that the son intended to injure defendant. Therefore, the insurer failed to prove that the shooting was not an “occurrence” under its homeowner’s policy.
We reverse summary judgment for the insurer and remand for entry of summary judgment for defendant.
Aylward v. Federal Emergency Management Agency The Standard Flood Insurance Policy excludes detached garages “used for or held for residential (i.e., dwelling) ... purposes.” Even though the upper level of plaintiffs’ detached garage contained a bathroom, kitchen and living room, and even though the local tax office classified the garage as a residential structure, since water and sewage lines had not been connected to the garage apartment at the time of the flood, and the heating and cooling were not working, the garage lacked the present potential for residential use when the flood occurred. Consequently, defendant improperly denied plaintiffs’ claim for damages regarding the garage.
Youngblood v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. When the plane that plaintiff’s husband was piloting went down and killed her husband, the N.C. Department of Insurance had not yet approved the pilot’s exclusion in plaintiff’s accidental death policy; nevertheless, the exclusion applies to bar coverage.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Cobb v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co. The disability insurance policy provided to the plaintiff-landscaper explained that he would not be considered disabled if he could engage in “any employment”; since plaintiff had a duty to read the policy, he cannot prove that he reasonably relied on any alleged misrepresentation made by the defendant-insurance agent.
We affirm summary judgment for defendants.
