Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were injured when their vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by Ida Trayter. Trayter's insurer tendered its liability limits, after which Plaintiffs sought underinsured motorist coverage from their insurer, State Farm. State Farm advised Plaintiffs that its settlement offer would be based on the "net" value of the claim after reduction of the liability limits and medical payments already received by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed suit against State Farm seeking a declaratory judgment that a non-duplication provision and reimbursement provision in State Farm's underinsured motorist policy violated W. Va. Code 33-6-31(b). The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs, finding both provisions at issue violated the statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a non-duplication of benefits provision in an underinsured motorist policy, which permits an insurer to reduce an insured's damages by amounts received under medical payments coverage, does not violate the "no sums payable" language of section 33-6-31(b), and the circuit court erred in holding otherwise; and (2) the circuit court's consideration of and entry of summary judgment on the reimbursement provision was erroneous because the provision was not ripe for adjudication in this matter. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Schatken" on Justia Law

This case involved a district court's denial of coverage under a fire insurance policy. A husband and wife had an insurance policy on their home. The policy included an intentional loss exclusion, voiding coverage when any insured intentionally causes a loss or damage. The district court denied coverage because the husband attempted suicide by pouring gasoline on himself and his home and lit himself on fire. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a coinsured who sets fire to the insured dwelling in order to commit suicide has the requisite intent to "cause a loss" under the policy; (2) under the language of the policy, the innocent coinsured spouse, who did not participate in the intentional acts of the other coinsured, cannot recover due to the intentional loss exclusion; and (3) the innocent coinsured cannot recover under the recently amended Iowa standard fire policy in Iowa Code 515.109. View "Postell v. Am. Family Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with Stephen Stanton. At the time, Plaintiff was operating a vehicle owned by his employer, Bambardier Aerospace Corporation, and Stanton was driving a vehicle owned by his employer, the City of Elkins. Plaintiff and his wife filed an action against the City and Stanton to recover for injuries. Plaintiffs' personal automobile insurer, Westfield Insurance, filed a crossclaim against the City and Stanton and a third party claim against Bombardier and National Union Fire Insurance. The trial court entered an order finding (1) the City, Stanton, and National were immune from liability; (2) Bombardier and Westfield were subject to a payment of damages of not more than $20,000 each; and (3) Plaintiffs were not entitled to auto medical coverage under the policy covering Bombardier and the policy issued by Westfield. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's order to the extent it held the uninsured motorist policies for Bombardier and Westfield were not enforceable above the mandatory limits of uninsured motorist coverage required by W. Va. Code 33-6-31; (2) reversed the court's order to the extent it denied Plaintiffs auto medical payment benefits under Bombardier's policy; and (3) affirmed the remainder of the court's judgment. View "Jenkins v. City of Elkins" on Justia Law

Petitioner, New Hampshire Insurance Company, appealed an order of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Respondent, RRK, Inc., finding that pursuant to the commercial marine property insurance policy issued by New Hampshire, RRK's barge and the barge's contents were covered property under the policy and that a wear-and-tear exclusion in the policy was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that there was no question of fact regarding whether a renewal policy was mailed to and received by RRK; but (2) the circuit court erred by granting partial summary judgment in favor of RRK because there was a question of fact as to whether, under the doctrine of reasonable expectations, the wear-and-tear exclusion present in the policy mailed to RRK was part of the insurance contract. Remanded. View "N.H. Ins. v. RRK., Inc." on Justia Law

Under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, the City of Newport provided health insurance benefits to its retired firefighters. After the City decided to modify those benefits, Local 1080, International Association of Firefighters, ALF-CIO (Union) filed grievances and sought arbitration. The City responded by seeking relief in the superior court to determine the arbitrability of disputes over changes to these benefits. The superior court determined that this dispute was not arbitrable. The Union disagreed and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the parties did not intend to arbitrate disputes regarding retiree healthcare, and therefore, such disputes must be resolved, if at all, judicially rather than through arbitration. View "City of Newport v. Local 1080, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO" on Justia Law

LSED sought to rescind an agreement to purchase bond insurance from FGIC and recover its $13 million premium payment. LSED based its claim on failure of cause, a tenet of Louisiana law that required all contracts be supported by cause. Because the court found that the principal cause of the agreement between the parties was the purchase of bond insurance to protect the bondholders in the event of default, not to reduce the interest rate LSED paid to borrow money, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought coverage under his homeowners' insurance policy issued by Insurer for damages allegedly caused by sheets of drywall manufactured in China that were installed in his home during its construction. Insurer denied Plaintiff's claim and brought an action in the U.S. district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's homeowners policy did not provide coverage for such losses. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the policy did not provide coverage for the damages allegedly caused by the drywall because of certain policy exclusions. The U.S. court of appeals certified to the Virginia Supreme Court the question of whether the policy exclusions were applicable to Plaintiff's claimed losses. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the policy unambiguously excluded from coverage damage caused by the Chinese drywall installed in Plaintiff's residence. View "TravCo Insurance Co. v. Ward" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a motor vehicle collision involving Roger Linton and James Carey that resulted in Carey's death. At the time of the collision, Linton was driving a truck owned by Jonathan Jennings, for whom Linton worked as an independent contractor. Jennings's insurer, State Farm, filed a declaratory judgment action against Carey's Estate and Linton to determine whether it was responsible for liability coverage and obligated to defend and indemnify Linton for claims arising from the collision. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that Linton was not an insured covered by Jennings's policy because his use of the truck was not within the scope of Jennings's consent. At issue on appeal was whether the superior court erred in its application of the minor deviation rule in determining that Linton's use of the truck exceeded the scope of Jennings's consent. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, clarified the applicable burdens associated with the minor deviation rule, and remanded for the superior court to apply the minor deviation rule as clarified. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Carey" on Justia Law

Hospital purchased from Insurer a "builders risk" insurance policy which included a provision requiring Hospital to obtain Insurer's written consent before assigning a claim for an insured loss. Hospital contracted with Constructors for floors and subsurface work, which was later damaged. Hospital claimed a loss and sought recompense under the builders risk policy, but Insurer denied the claim. Hospital later assigned Constructors any claim or rights Hospital had against Insurer arising out of the insurance policy. Constructors, as Hospital's assignee, brought suit in federal court against Insurer seeking to recover payment due under the builder's risk policy. The Supreme Court granted the certification request of the federal court to answer a question of state law and concluded that, under Kentucky law, a clause in an insurance policy that requires the insured to obtain the insurer's prior written consent before assigning a claim for an insured loss under the policy is not enforceable or applicable to the assignment of a claim under the policy where the covered loss occurs before the assignment, and that such a clause would, under those circumstances, be void as against public policy. View "Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs acquired a homeowners' insurance policy from Defendant effective as of the closing date of the home they had entered into a contract to purchase. The closing date was scheduled to take place on March 31 but was delayed until May 20. On May 15, a fire completely destroyed the house. Defendant disclaimed coverage on the pertinent grounds that the dwelling was unoccupied at the time of the loss, and therefore, it did not qualify as a "residence premises" under the policy. Supreme court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The appellate division modified the order, concluding that the "residence premises" requirement in the policy failed to define what qualifies as "resides" for the purpose of attaching coverage and that the policy was ambiguous in the circumstances of this case, and otherwise denied summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there were issues of fact as to whether Plaintiffs' daily presence in the house, coupled with their intent to eventually move in, was sufficient to satisfy the policy's requirements; and (2) the term "residence premises" in the contract was ambiguous. View "Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y." on Justia Law