Topic
Every decision we've filed under Insurance.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by an insurance company seeking to intervene in a civil trafficking lawsuit. The court held that the insurer waited too long to file its motion, rendering the request untimely under federal rules.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a bad faith insurance claim brought by an assignee of an insured. The court held that Oklahoma law governed the dispute and barred the assignment of the claim.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in a bad faith insurance claim. The court held that the insurer acted reasonably in settling other claims to minimize excess liability exposure.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding that a commercial tenant and its newly formed subsidiary were alter egos engaged in a fraudulent conveyance to evade lease obligations. The court held that the subsidiary was not a bona fide third party and that the assignment violated the lease agreement and Maryland law.
The Fourth Circuit held that two lawsuits against Avertest were related claims under Columbia Casualty's claims-made policy. Because the earlier suit was first made during Columbia's policy period, Columbia had to cover the later suit and reimburse Navigators.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bankers Specialty Insurance Company. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the terms of the flood insurance policy.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of 2B Claims Services. The court found that GoAuto Insurance's own actions were the cause of its alleged damages.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurers. The court found no error in the application of the insurance policy exclusion and the fortuity doctrine.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of an insurance coverage dispute involving a fraudulent wire transfer. The court held that the construction company was a vendor providing services, triggering a policy exclusion for deception fraud.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that an insurance company owed no duty to defend or indemnify a security firm. The court held that the policy exclusion for injuries at all locations was not ambiguous.