9 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
Per curiam, the appeals court finds the trial court improperly granted the insured's oral motion to compel appraisal and in the meantime stay his lawsuit against the insurance company. The relevant policy requires that both parties agree to appraisal, and because the insurance company clearly stated at the time of the insured's motion that it did not agree to appraisal, the trial court erred by granting the motion, in the process also violating the company's due process rights by hearing and granting the motion at an unrelated pretrial hearing without prior notice. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 23-0256, Categories: insurance, due Process
J. Barrett finds the board of review improperly affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits to the nurse. The board denied the nurse benefits based on its claim she made false statements on her application. The board merely adopted the appeal tribunal's decision and did not make findings of fact substantially supporting its decision. Reversed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Barrett , Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: E-22-557, Categories: Employment, insurance, due Process
J. Hixon finds the trial court properly dismissed the insurance commissioner and receiver's suit alleging the holdings company misled the insurer as to the bank insurer's financial condition, causing it to overvalue its stock when deciding whether to purchase it. The commissioner/receiver filed a negligent misrepresentation action which was later voluntarily dismissed and filed a second suit after the limitations. They may not rely on the original action and the one-year savings statute because it was not dismissed until after the second suit was filed. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon , Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 119910, Categories: Fraud, insurance, due Process
J. Laurer finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the surviving spouse of the Army veteran accrued benefits and burial benefits. After Veterans Affairs terminated the veteran’s non-service-connected pension due to unreported unearned income, the veteran paid the $80,895 debt in full. He and his spouse then objected to the debt, saying that he had been service-connected for some time. The VA notified the veteran that he must submit all standard claim forms or an “intent to file.” He died before this occurred, and the objection letter, even if construed as an intent to file, cannot be changed into accrued benefits. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Laurer, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 20-0774, Categories: insurance, Veterans, due Process
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly dismissed the insurance dispute without prejudice. After the insurance company partly denied the property owner’s claims for wind damage stemming from a tornado, the case was first brought in county court before the insurance company removed it to federal court. The property owner’s counsel failed to comply with a local rule requiring the retention of local counsel. The court provided the property owners with two opportunities to file for leave to proceed without local counsel, which was not done. There is no abuse of discretion found. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 23-10148, Categories: insurance, due Process
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. May finds the trial court improperly denied the insured party’s motion for a directed verdict as to this insurance dispute arising from repairs made to a ceiling fan which fell due to water seepage. Though there was a clear policy exception for coverage for water seepage occurring over time, the court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict on the initial burden of proof. The insured’s requested instructions which were denied did not accurately state applicable law, and the facts do not support the requested instruction. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: May, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 4D22-865, Categories: insurance, Jury, due Process
J. Welch finds the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the insurance policies of the individuals who suffered traumatic injuries in car accidents bind the providers to personal injury protection under the law that existed at the time of injury. Later no-fault amendments do not clearly convey an intent to retroactively modify these vested contractual rights. The parties no longer have standing to move forward with due process and equal protection challenges to prospective application of the amendments. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Judge: Welch, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 164772, Categories: insurance, due Process, Contract
J. Scales finds the trial court improperly compelled the insurance company to engage in an appraisal process with the homeowners, who are challenging the amount they received for their claim over damages their home suffered from Hurricane Irma in 2017. The trial court violated the insurance company's due process rights by granting the homeowners' oral request for appraisal at a case management conference when no properly filed motion for appraisal was pending or noticed for hearing and the company was not prepared to argue the issue, so the portion of the trial court's order compelling appraisal is overturned. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Scales, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 22-1524, Categories: insurance, due Process, Contract
J. Prince finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the insured party, directing the Oklahoma Tax Commission to issue an original title, rather than a salvage title, for his damaged vehicle, though GEICO had determined repair costs at a total loss. Relevant statutes allow that an insurer’s determination of “total loss,” including the cost of repair, can represent a rule of procedure to establish a fact that may be argued in a civil action. The insured party is allowed to challenge GEICO’s determination of costs. Undisputed facts in the summary judgment record show that the insured was entitled to relief as a matter of law. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Prince, Filed On: May 15, 2023, Case #: 120906, Categories: insurance, Tax, due Process