Chapman v. Life Insurance Co. of North America : Where plaintiff’s decedent -- who was taking prescribed opioid medications -- vomited in her sleep and choked to death, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether her death was an accident within the meaning of the parties’ accidental death policy and whether the policy’s exclusion for “sickness, disease, bodily or mental infirmity” applies
Municipal Ass’n of South Carolina v. USAA General Indemnity Co. In this dispute between insurance companies that offer flood insurance under a federal program in South Carolina, and a group of South Carolina municipalities that want to assess a business license tax on the carriers based on the flood insurance premiums collected in the municipalities under an arrangement with FEMA, the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment to the municipalities on their affirmative defense of preemption; the 4th Circuit says the flood insurance premiums are federal property that cannot be taxed without government consent.
Francis v. Allstate Insurance Co. Although a parent defending a defamation suit says her only intention in accusing an aide at the Maryland School for the Deaf of sexually abusing her son was to protect the child, the accusation nevertheless was an intentional act, and not an “occurrence” under her renter’s insurance policy that would trigger Allstate’s duty to defend; applying California law to the coverage issue, the 4th Circuit upholds judgment for Allstate.
According to the complaint, a husband accidentally shot and killed his estranged wife at their home and then shot and killed himself. The wife’s estate obtained a default judgment against the husband’s estate, and the husband’s estate seeks indemnification pursuant to homeowners’ insurance policy issued by defendant. Since the wife was a named insured under the policy, an exclusion in the policy precludes personal liability coverage for claims brought as a result of her death.
Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brinley’s Grading Service, Inc. In determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured, we consider only the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action.
In re Dunn Where defendant was ordered to register as a sex offender as a result of his November 1994 conviction in Montgomery County for attempted second-degree sex offense, G.S. § 14-208.12A required him to file his petition to terminate his sex offender registration in Montgomery County.
McPherson v. Minnesota Life Insurance Co. Since plaintiff and her late husband paid their mortgage accidental death insurance premiums monthly as part of their mortgage payments, they were not entitled to the notice required by G.S. § 58-58-120 when the policy was cancelled. That statute only applies to policies for which premiums are payable at intervals greater than one month.
Johnson v. Household Life Insurance Co. State court records show that plaintiff’s decedent gave a false answer on his life insurance application when he said he had not had his driver’s license suspended during the two previous years.
Cosey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America Even though all of plaintiff’s medical complaints are subjective, the defendant-insurer was still entitled to require objective “proof” of plaintiff’s claimed disability. The court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Strickland v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 Where the disabled plaintiff alleges that he relied on defendant’s misleading statements in deciding to have necessary but non-emergency surgery without first obtaining Medicare Part B, plaintiff may be entitled to equitable relief under ERISA.