by sohalang | Mar 4, 2011 | Blog News, Uncategorized
Newmont USA Limited v. All American Home Assurance Co., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Cause No. CV-09-0033-JLQ, March 3, 2011 Order on PIL Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The insurer sought a declaration by the court that the scope of the personal injury liability coverage did not encompass Newmont and Dawn’s liability declared in a CERCLA cost recovery action brought by the United States, which only included claims under CERCLA and no common law claims for trespass or nuisance. The court disagreed and ruled, “the claims filed against the Plaintiffs herein by the United States are analogous to trespass, nuisance, and interference with the use of private occupancy and encompassed with the stated Coverage P for claims of “wrongful entry” or “invasion of the right of private occupancy.”
Despite the fact the underlying case was resolved at the trial court level and is on appeal, the court found that there was an issue of fact regarding “whether the Plaintiffs in fact committed covered offenses for which [the insurer] is obligated to provide indemnity.”
by sohalang | Mar 3, 2011 | Blog News, Uncategorized
In Allemand v. State Farm Ins Co., et al, Dkt. no.28954-1 (Div. III, Mar. 03, 2011), Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that policy provisions in a State Farm Insurance Company homeowners insurance policy unambiguously limited coverage for increased costs of repairs due to changes in the building codes.
by sohalang | Jan 20, 2011 | Blog News, Uncategorized
In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Arbor Vineyards Homeowners Association, Cause Number CV-10-504-HU (D. Or.), Federal Judge Hubel authored an opinion filed on January 18, 2011 that dismissed the insured’s counterclaims against its insurer for breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith finding that the filing of a declaratory judgment action alone, while the underlying action is still pending, does not support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the insurer. The court reasoned, “. . . without some authority, I am unwilling to conclude that the mere fact of filing the coverage action can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty or a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That is, plaintiff’s filing a complaint seeking clarification of its coverage obligations while the underlying lawsuit is pending is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the counterclaims.”
by sohalang | Jan 10, 2011 | Blog News, Uncategorized
In an unpublished decision issued today, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals held that policy language authorizing an insurer to be reimbursed for property damage payments from the proceeds of a settlement its insured obtained from a third party tortfeasor insured by the same carrier did not trigger the anti-subrogation rule because the carrier was claiming a right to reimbursement, not a right to proceed directly against the third party. Horner v. Farmers Ins Co., No. 64169-7.
by sohalang | Dec 15, 2010 | Blog News, Uncategorized
Lenk v. Life Insurance Company of North America, EDWA Docket No. 2:10-cv-05018-LRS, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (December 13, 2010).
The Eastern District of Washington trial court ruled that Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) was not retroactive, and would not apply if the initial denial occurred prior to the enactment of IFCA. Citing to Rinehart v. Life Insurance Company of North America, 2009 WL 529524, *1 (W.D. Wash. 2009), the court found that “even where an insurer affirmatively denies an insured’s appeal after IFCA’s effective date, the statute still does not apply so long as the initial denial occurred prior to the effective date of the statute.” The Court then went on to conclude that the undisputed facts indicated that plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was initially denied by letter dated January 18, 2006, before IFCA was enacted . Thereafter, plaintiff’s final appeal was denied by letter dated December 11, 2006. The court concluded that “[c]onsequently, the “precipitating event,” along with all subsequent denials, occurred prior to the December 6, 2007 effective date of IFCA.” And thus the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s IFCA claim.
The Court also addressed when a cause of action for bad faith accrues and when the statute of limitations runs on such a claim. The Court agreed with the insurer and found that a cause of action for a bad faith denial “accrues as of the date of the denial. ” The court rejected the insured’s argument that bad faith was a continuing tort and that accrual should be the date of “final” denial. The court stressed, “Plaintiff’s cause of action against his insurer accrued at the time his claim for coverage was [initially] denied.” Since more than three years had elapsed between the denial and the filing of suit, the court found that the bad faith claim was barred because the statute of limitations had run.
