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.
Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co. v. McNeill In his deposition, an insured said the signature on an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage selection/rejection form did not look like his signature but that it could be; his subsequent affidavit was an explanation - and not a contradiction - of his deposition when it said that, upon further reflection, he had determined that it was not his signature.
Group Health Plan for Employees of Barnhill Contracting Co. v. Integon National Insurance Co. The plaintiff-health plan had a lien on settlement proceeds; nevertheless, defendant paid the full settlement proceeds to plaintiff’s insureds. Although the doctrine of equitable subrogation would allow plaintiff to make any claims available to its insureds, equitable subrogation is not a claim in itself, and the only claim asserted by plaintiff - conversion - is not one that belonged to its insureds, nor is it supported by our case law.
We affirm summary judgment for defendant.
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. Defendant agreed to insure the title of property for which plaintiff held a deed of trust. Defendant made no showing that the parties intended to exclude from their policy a parcel of the land that they later learned was encumbered by a prior deed of trust. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to a reformation of the policy.
Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove Where a feed mill’s elevator exploded after a welding company fixed a broken belt, the “your work” exclusion clause in the welding company’s commercial liability policy did not preclude coverage for the feed mill’s lost revenue. Exclusion clauses must be narrowly construed.
We affirm summary judgment for the defendant-insured.
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Woodie’s Painting, Inc. Even though the insurance policy form could apply to either an individual or corporate insured, there is no ambiguity here since the insurance application made it clear that the defendant-corporation - and not its owner - was to be the insured.
We affirm summary judgment for the plaintiff-insurer.
