Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Insurance Law”

Calif. Supreme Court Holds TCPA Claims May Be Covered by CGL Policy Provision for Violation of ‘Right to Privacy’

The California Supreme Court recently answered a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy that provides coverage for “injury ... arising out of ... [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy” can cover liability for intrusion on the right of seclusion arising from violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act if such coverage is consistent with the insured’s objectively reasonable expectations.

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Coverage for Ransomware Attack Losses

The Ohio Supreme Court recently reversed the decision of an appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer and against an insured company on the company’s claim for breach of contract and bad faith denial of insurance coverage relating to damages arising from a ransomware attack. 

Illinois Supreme Court Holds Homeowner’s Insurer Could Not Reduce Loss Reimbursements by Depreciating Cost of Labor

The Supreme Court of Illinois recently held that a homeowner’s insurance company could not deduct depreciation from reimbursements for labor costs from the actual cash value of a covered loss, because the policy at issue did not specifically and unambiguously allow the practice.

11th Cir. Holds ‘Invasion of Privacy’ Exclusion Barred Coverage for TCPA Class Action Settlement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that, under Florida law, a policy exclusion that barred coverage for claims arising out of an invasion of privacy also unambiguously excluded coverage for claims alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, when the complaint specifically mentioned invasions of privacy.

Calif. App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Interest Payment Not Required on Escrowed Hazard Insurance Proceeds

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, recently held that neither California Civil Code section 2954.8 nor the parties’ loan agreement required the mortgagee to pay interest on insurance proceeds it held in escrow following the destruction of the plaintiff's home.

7th Cir. Holds Insurer Had No Duty to Defend FDCPA, TCPA, and Related Common Law Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment that an insurer had no duty to defend a debt collector in an action brought by a consumer asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as common law claims of defamation and invasion of privacy.

7th Cir. Rules in Favor of Mortgagee in Insurance Coverage Dispute Involving Fire in Collateral Property

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer and against a mortgagee in an action involving state tort claims arising from a deadly fire in the collateral property, holding that an issue of fact existed regarding who was in possession of the property when the fire occurred.

3rd Cir. Rejects Allegations That Hazard Insurance Premiums Were Fraudulently Inflated

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of allegations that a mortgage lender colluded with an insurance company and insurance agent to inflate the rate of the borrowers’ force-placed hazard insurance policies in violation of various consumer protection statutes, RICO, and the common law.

NY High Court Rules in Favor of Lender in Action to Recover Settlement and Defense Costs From Insurer

In an action by a lender and its affiliate to recover insurance proceeds for defense costs of a federal qui tam action and indemnification for the resulting settlement, the New York Court of Appeals recently held that an arbitration panel can reconsider an initial determination, or “partial final award,” so long as the determination or award does not resolve all of the issues submitted for arbitration.