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.
Posts published in “Insurance Law”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's judgment in an action brought by two landowners against their title insurance companies for indemnification and breach of contract.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the failure to present the issuer of a letter of credit with draw request before the appointment of a conservator does not necessarily preclude recovery of damages by the beneficiary.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a homeowner’s claims against her hazard insurer related to its deduction for costs of labor as “depreciation” in determining its net payment for damage to the home.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s certification of an injunction class, holding that the injunctive relief sought by the class was improper because the true relief sought was really damages. A copy of the opinion in AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v. Progressive American Insurance Co. is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2012, Florida’s law requiring automobile insurance policies to provide personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits up to $10,000 was amended so that “not every injured motorist will be eligible to access all $10,000 in benefits.” Coverage is capped at $2,500…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction because when the plaintiffs withdrew their class action allegations in an amended complaint, the withdrawal divested the court of jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). A copy of the decision in Gale v. Chicago Title Insurance Company is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff, an attorney on behalf of himself and a putative class, sued several title insurance company defendants alleging that they had tortiously interfered with business opportunities and violated Connecticut law because under Conn. Gen.…