19 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Vehicle" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Whitney orders a car insurance company and a driver who was injured in a collision in 2018 to submit supplemental briefs detailing whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction to resolve a policy coverage dispute in North Carolina or wait until an underlying suit in South Carolina is resolved. The collision occurred in South Carolina. Although the insurance of the driver at fault paid out according to its limit of $100,000 on the injured driver’s claim, he alleges that the costs of treatment for his injuries exceed this amount. The insurance company claims the injured driver is not entitled to additional coverage under its uninsured motorist policy because he failed to comply with certain notice provisions under North Carolina state law and the uninsured motorist policy. Thus, both parties must submit supplemental briefs to proceed.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Whitney, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv28, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Pryor finds that the lower court properly limited the insurer's liability under the underinsured motorist policy's $1 million limit by sums the driver received from other sources. The insurer is entitled to offset the limit by a settlement in a personal-injury lawsuit and a workers' compensation award. Between the sums received from other sources, and the insurer's payment of $672,000, the driver recovered a total of $1 million, thus fulfilling the purpose of underinsured motorist coverage under Illinois law. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: April 1, 2024, Case #: 22-2776, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Samour finds the appeals court erroneously determined the "regular use vehicle" exclusion for uninsured motorist benefits in the classic car owner's policy was unenforceable. Although this court has previously found such benefits cannot be tied to use of a particular type of vehicle, the policy at issue in this case works in tandem with a standard policy that has its own uninsured motorist benefits and, therefore, allows for the exclusion. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Samour, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2024 CO 17, Categories: insurance, vehicle, 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. Dimke grants default judgment to the insurance company for its complaint that it has no duty to cover the insured's claim relating to a collision that occurred when someone else was driving his insured vehicle. The loss is excluded by the policy's employee exclusion clause, as the insurance company believes that the man who drove the car during the accident was the insured's employee. The insured's lack of cooperation in confirming or denying this prejudiced the insurance company in this case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Dimke, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv5043, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Mahan grants the insurer's partial motion for summary judgment on a company owner's commercial vehicle collision coverage-related claims. The policy holder is the business, not the owner, and the owner lacks standing.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Mahan , Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv879, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Reyes finds that the lower court properly found for the insurer, which denied the insured motorcyclist's attempt to "stack" uninsured motorist coverage limits from three separate policies. The policies unambiguously provide that such coverage limits may not be aggregated or combined. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Reyes, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: 230193, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Messitte partially dismisses an insurer’s motion to dismiss in this insurance dispute stemming from two highly valuable Porsches being stolen from the insured’s home. The insured seeks breach of contract and declaratory judgment because the insurer denied the claims, stating that the cars had never been registered. The breach of contract claim is denied since the insured could state a claim and the declaratory judgment items will be resolved through the breach of contract.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Messitte, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 8:23cv310, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Rothstein denies the insurance company partial summary judgment on the insured's extracontractual claims that while the insurance company acknowledged that the insured was injured in a car collision, it wrongfully disputes that his left knee replacement surgery was medically necessary and thus it asserts that it is not responsible for covering the associated medical expenses. At this time, neither party conclusively shows whether the insurance company's offer was unreasonably low because there are still issues of material fact.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1551, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Welling finds the lower court properly found for an insurer in an uninsured motorist coverage dispute. While the driver involved in the crash was not specifically listed as an excluded driver in the insurance policy's uninsured motorist benefits section, the policy language unambiguously excluded her from all coverage when it listed her at the outset of its declarations. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welling, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 2023COA94, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
C.J. Bright finds the trial court erroneously granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the injured driver's uninsured motorist claim. Regardless of whether she or her employer rented the vehicle involved in the collision, she was driving a covered vehicle at the time of the accident and was entitled to recover the benefits awarded to the employer. Reversed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: AC45054, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Adkins disagrees with the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to State Farm in a bad faith lawsuit brought by a passenger who was injured in a hit and run collision. State Farm refused to cover medical costs associated with the passenger's recovery. The passenger also filed a complaint with the state insurance administration, then the office of administrative hearings, both of which ended up in favor of State Farm. The lower court then said she was estopped from relitigating her claim because it constituted an independent civil claim, but this is incorrect because it was actually an appeal of the administration's decision. Reversed.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Adkins, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 475045V, Categories: insurance, vehicle, contract