18 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Silva grants the underwriter's motion for summary judgment. Injury claims were brought against the party rental company after its "trackless train" ride turned over when the driver took it down a steep decline. The company's business license was expired at the time of the accident and the underwriter declined coverage. Nothing in the record disputes the underwriter learned of the company's lack of license after the accident, and that it then stopped collecting premiums. The underwriter did not waive its right to cancel coverage prior to defending the claim.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Silva , Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1884, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Moon denies the fire safety company's motion to dismiss contract claims. After a fire started in a kitchen covered by the insurance company, the fire safety company's fire impression system did not discharge, the alarm sensor did not alert the local fire department, and the sprinklers took 45 minutes to start working. The insurance company has pled enough facts that was owed an obligation to have functioning equipment.
Court: USDC Western District of Virginia, Judge: Moon, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv33, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Crabtree grants an insurance company's motion to dismiss contract and negligence claims brought by a consumer who bought a homeowners' insurance policy. The insurance company sufficiently showed in court the insurer's employee cannot be sued for negligently managing the homeowner's claim based on her non-party status to the policy.
Court: USDC Kansas, Judge: Crabtree, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv2357, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Karas grants an insurance company’s motion to dismiss. A consumer was awarded damages associated with an incident where an electronic cigarette battery arced when it came into contact with coins in the consumer’s pocket, causing injury. The consumer alleges breach of contract because the electronic cigarette company’s insurance company has not paid, but the insurance company argues that a products exclusion clause excludes coverage for all bodily injury occurring away from the premises. Because the consumer did not respond to the insurance company’s argument, the consumer abandoned the claim. Dismissed.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Karas, Filed On: September 22, 2023, Case #: 7:22cv8928, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Springmann grants in part and denies in part an insurance company’s motion to dismiss. A storm damaged the roof of a condominium building, causing damage to the exterior and interior of the building. The insured filed suit against the insurer seeking proceeds due under the policy and damages, as it claims the insurer conducted an inadequate inspection. The insurance company argues that the policy insured a now defunct condominiums owners association, therefore the insured cannot bring the current suit, but the instant court disagrees finding the name nowhere in the contract. The instant court does find that an individual is not a named insured or beneficiary on the policy and grants the insurer's motion to dismiss her as a plaintiff in this matter.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Springmann, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv347, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Doyle finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the insurance agency in a negligence and breach of contract action brought by the used car wholesaler arising from the agency's alleged failure to secure proper coverage for the wholesaler. The wholesaler had a responsibility to examine the policy for "readily apparent" exclusions. The exclusion related to coverage for vehicle losses was obvious in the policy. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: A23A0697, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Chase finds that the trial court properly determined that an insurer does not owe coverage on a property owner's claim that the insured negligently used hot torches to perform roofing work on the property, causing a fire. A crewmember for the insured conceded that hot tools and torches were used to install a flat torch down roof to the building. Under the policy's Torch Down Roofing Exclusion, the insurer owes no duty to defend or indemnify the insured for the claims asserted by the property owner. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Chase, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 2022-CA-0821, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Vigil finds a lower court ruled partially correctly in an insurance dispute. After a consumer said he developed breathing problems as a result of water damage to his home, he sued both his insurer and a company that he hired for abatement, but lower courts correctly concluded New Mexico does not allow for “duplicate compensatory damages.” However, a lower court erred somewhat in determining what damages were due from what party. Affirmed in part.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Vigil, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-38872, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Wise finds that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the insurance agent parties on allegations they failed to timely submit insurance claims, causing a family $2 million in damages. The evidence raises a fact issue as to whether the agent had a duty to submit the claims. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wise, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 14-21-00708-CV, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract
J. Thomson makes a preliminary write of mandamus permanent, and orders the lower court to vacate an order granting the insurer's motion to intervene in this negligence action. The insurer does not have an unconditional right to intervene in a claim involving property damage, not personal injuries.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Thomson, Filed On: May 9, 2023, Case #: WD85870, Categories: insurance, negligence, contract