Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Children’s Home Society of North Carolina, Inc. Even though the proposed intervenors wish to adopt wholesale the arguments of defendant, the mere presence of additional claimants introduces new issues, such as how many claims occurred for purposes of calculating applicable insurance policy limits.
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.
Martin v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC Where a trial court operated under an invalid assumption about a previous appellate ruling, and further failed to demonstrate its findings under the Washington factors, an award of attorney fees is inadequate for further appellate review.
ASHEVILLE (AP) — The company that owned a historic inn in Asheville that burned down four years ago won’t be able to collect on a $6 million insurance policy after a federal jury ruled it intentionally set the fire.
Rayfield Properties, LLC v. Business Insurers of the Carolinas, Inc. The plaintiff-property owner failed to show that the defendant-insurance agency had a duty to procure insurance that covered theft and vandalism for plaintiff’s vacant property or to specifically inform plaintiff about the theft and vandalism exclusion in plaintiff’s policy.
The question often arises concerning whether lawyers can effectively and ethically represent opposite types of clients — for example, insurance carriers and insurance coverage plaintiffs.
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.
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.
Lawley v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. If defendants breached their disability insurance contract with plaintiff, they did so when they denied her claim on March 28, 2003, not every time a monthly disability payment was due. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2011 complaint was not timely filed.
Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control Even though defendants are covered by the county’s liability insurance, since the policy excludes any claim that would otherwise be subject to governmental immunity, the policy does not waive governmental immunity.