1,028 results for 'nos:"Insurance - Contract"'.
J. Africk denies the property owner’s breach of contract claim against his insurer for failing to pay any of his $300,000 claim for hurricane damage. The mere facts that the property owner has an insurance policy and has not been paid for alleged damages do not constitute factual allegations sufficient to allow for the plausible conclusion the insurer’s actions are “arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by any evidence and constitute bad faith.” The policyowner is offered one opportunity to amend his complaint to provide more specifics and facts to support his claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv1463, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Evidence, Insurance, Damages
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. Hillman vacates default judgment entered in an insurer's claims seeking interpleader to determine whether the remainder of a life policy should be paid out because the policy names several potential beneficiaries and may be ambiguous regarding the son's potential share due to his involvement in the policyholder's murder.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Hillman , Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv13115, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance
J. Palk grants the motion to remand this negligence lawsuit alleging that a property owner suffered property damage as a result of water runoff from the neighboring properties. Fraudulent joinder is not a basis for the court "to exercise diversity jurisdiction." Also, the plaintiff property owner has a "reasonable procedural basis" for joining the various defendants, including the defendant insurance company, in a single action.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Palk, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 5:23cv263, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Negligence
J. Schroeder finds for an insurer accused of failing to provide indemnification in underlying civil rights claims involving a police assault because the policy contained an exclusion for assault and battery claims, and a prior judgment premised on negligence counts does not apply. Meanwhile, the insurer timely disclaimed coverage.
Court: USDC Western District of New York, Judge: Schroeder , Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv297, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, Indemnification
J. Ross grants summary judgment to the defendant insurer on the beneficiary’s sole remaining breach of contract claim alleging it increased the monthly cost of insurance rates on two secondhand life insurance policies to recoup prior losses. The insurer’s expert proffered uncontested testimony that claimed the increases were determined by what is considered “prospectively,” which is allowed under the terms of the policies.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Ross, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 1:17cv3527, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance
J. Mazzant grants partial summary judgment that the decedent's ex-wife is the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy instead of his father, who also claims entitlement to the proceeds. The evidence shows that the policy was the decedent's separate property, and his designation of the ex-wife as the primary beneficiary is still effective.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Mazzant, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv340, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Insurance
J. Bumb dismisses claims seeking insurance coverage for medically necessary surgery because that the insurer authorized surgery did not establish an implied contract, and authorization did not specify covered treatments or costs.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Bumb, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2407, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance
J. Tunheim denies the insurer's motion in its declaratory-judgment case against its insured to amend his partial summary judgment order to certify it for an interlocutory appeal. There is not substantial ground for a difference of opinion on how many deductibles the insured is responsible for, and the insurer has not shown that an appeal would materially advance the termination of litigation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv2093, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. Kindred denies in part an insurance company's motion for summary judgment regarding an insurance dispute for failure to defend or indemnify involving an underlying suit in which seven patients brought claims against a chiropractor for sexual assault and malpractice. The insurer is not liable for any portion of the settlement stemming from the sexual assault claims, as acts of sexual misconduct did not fall within the policy's definition of "professional services." However, a dispute exists as to whether the malpractice claims stemming from pain or bruising during treatment are covered under the policy.
Court: USDC Alaska, Judge: Kindred, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 3:17cv193, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance
J. Immergut finds that neither party is entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging Oregon Ballot Measure 114’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines as unconstitutional. This case “implicates complex issues of fact, ranging from the historical uses and prevalence of certain weapons to the functional similarities between the earliest firearms capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading and the LCMs of modern-day use.” The case also involves “important and unsettled questions of law,” which are “more properly reached after the benefit of a full trial rather than on a motion for summary judgment.”
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Immergut, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1815, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Constitution, Firearms
J. Zilly finds in favor of the insurance company on claims from the apparel company and its managing member alleging that the insurance company did not honor its commercial liability policy by not defending or indemnifying the apparel company in an underlying lawsuit. The insurance company has no duty to defend or indemnify the apparel company because the underlying lawsuit does not allege an advertising injury as defined in the policy. The apparel company's use of the opposing parties' logos and art as part of the former's "nostalgia branded apparel" did not cause the injury, but rather the apparel company caused the opposing parties' damages when it did not pay the specified percentages of its sales.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv417, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Indemnification, Contract