Source: https://www.insuranceexpertplitt.com/blog/insurance-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:51:25+00:00

Document:
By Steven Plitt of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Thursday, April 25, 2019.
Recently the Kansas Supreme Court held that the insurance company's untimely reservation of rights letter estopped the insurer from denying coverage. In Becker v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co., 419 P.3d 212 (Kan. 2018), the trial court ruled that the insurance company that had issued the attorney's claim made professional liability policy had no duty to defend a claim made before the policy's inception, notwithstanding the insurance company's failure to reserve its rights to deny coverage in a timely manner. The trial court found that coverage could not be expanded by estoppel. However, the Kansas Supreme Court disagreed.
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Wednesday, April 24, 2019.
The Illinois Supreme Court in First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Ciolino, 107 N.E.3d 240, appeal denied, 108 N.E.3d 840 (Ill. 2018), considered when a malicious prosecution claim became an "offense" for purposes of insurance coverage and whether the claim fell within the subject policy. The Court found that when dealing with malicious prosecution claims, the date of occurrence for triggering coverage was the date that the prosecution commenced and not the date on which plaintiff was exonerated. The Court noted that the use of the term "offense" in the policy did not demonstrate the intent of the parties that coverage would only be triggered upon the fulfillment of all elements of the tort of malicious prosecution under Illinois law. The Court found that coverage was dependent upon whether the insured's offensive conduct was committed during the policy period, irrespective of whether there had been an accrual of the malicious prosecution tort.
By Steven Plitt of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Thursday, April 18, 2019.
The Washington Court of Appeals recently adopted a choose your own poison approach to cases where an insurer exhausts its policy limits in settlement of one claim while other related claims remain unresolved. In Singh v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 428 P.3d 1237 (Wash. App. Div. I, 2018) the court found that an insurance company's fiduciary duty may preclude the insurer from exercising policy rights.
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Thursday, March 7, 2019.
Under the so-called "in for one, in for all" rule, if there is one covered claim on a multi-count complaint while other claims are not covered, the insurer is required to defend the entire action. Recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Lupu v. Lone City, LLC, 903 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2018) (interpreting Pennsylvania law) held that a title insurer was entitled to limit its duty to defend only to covered claims. The court found that title insurance policies differed from general liability policies because title insurance policies are limited to loss from defects that cloud or invalidate a title. Because title insurers cover past defects in title, title insurers were entitled to limit their risk by searching the public records before issuing a policy. This was different than general liability insurance which typically provided insurance against future events. Additionally, general liability insurance companies typically promise to defend "a suit" or "any suit" seeking damages for covered acts or omissions. In contrast, title insurers promise to defend only claims arising from defects in title.
By Steven Plitt of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Wednesday, February 20, 2019.
The Kentucky Supreme Court in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Smith, 487 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2016) held that the insurer had a duty to advise its insured of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage when the policy was initially purchased. However, the insurer had no duty to advise the insured of the availability of UIM coverage after the insured renewed the policy for the first time. Although it was undisputed that the designation of UIM coverage was not listed on the declarations page of the insured's policy, the evidence also showed that Allstate sent a form to the insured with each renewal, notifying the insured about the ability to purchase higher limits for UM and UIM coverage.
In Louisiana, Insurers Are Not Vicariously Liable For The Negligence Of A Roofer Who Was Provided To The Insured Under The Insurance Company's "Direct Repair Contractor Program"
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Wednesday, February 13, 2019.
In Rubin v. American Insurance Co., 193 So. 3d 408 (La. App. 2016), American Insurance Company had a direct repair contractor program which was a list of approved contractors. If the insured used one of the approved contractors, the program provided that AIC would "be responsible" for the roof it provided. In this case, the insureds agreed to use the approved contractor provided by AIC to repair a roof damaged by a hail storm. The insureds alleged that the roofer was negligent when it removed the roof, but did not adequately protect the roof thereafter, nor did the approved contractor return to the job for several days while it was raining. It was alleged that mold grew in the house because of this negligence. The insureds sued AIC, alleging that AIC was responsible for the contractor's negligence under theories of vicarious liability or joint venture. The case was tried to a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the insureds, although the jury found that the insurance company was not, itself, negligent. The trial court then granted AIC's motion for a directed verdict as to the complaint.
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert posted in Insurance Law on Wednesday, December 26, 2018.
In Jody James Farms, J.V. v. Altman Group, Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018), the insurance agent failed to timely submit a hail and rain claim on behalf of the insured to the insurance company. The agent was then sued by the policyholder, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and deceptive trade practices. The insurance agency moved to compel arbitration, which was granted by the Texas District Court. The case then proceeded through arbitration and resulted in a panel finding in favor of the agency. The trial court then affirmed the arbitration award. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.