Author: C. Michael Johnson
New Jersey Appellate Division Declines to Extend Scope of TNCSRA to Cover Food Delivery Services
Written by: Kelly P. Corrubia, Esq.
A panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division in a case of first impression held that the Transportation Network Safety and Regulatory Act (TNCSRA)1 applies only to transportation network companies that use a digital network to connect a rider to a prearranged ride, such as Uber or Lyft, and that the scope does not include app-based food delivery services, such as Uber Eats.
Background
In
Important Ruling on Assault & Battery Exclusions
Written by: Duane L. Cochenour, Esq.
Judge Kevin B. Weiss of the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, issued a potentially important ruling regarding assault and battery exclusions. An appeal is sure to follow, but the court granted the plaintiff’s rather novel argument that mental anguish damages (and a $25M Judgement for them) are not excluded by the assault and battery exclusion in this case.
Background
The underlying case involved a
A Recap on the Modern Trend to Impose Duty of Good Faith upon Primary Insurers
Written by: Cayton S. Chrisman, Esq.
The insurance industry has long been undecided as to whether primary insurers owe a duty of good faith to excess insurers, and, if such a duty does exist, when that duty arises. On one hand, some jurisdictions have determined that there is no affirmative or direct duty of a primary insurer to an excess insurer but that such a duty may arise as
Ohio Affirms: No CGL Coverage in Opioid Epidemic Cases
Written by: Nolan Hendricks
On September 7, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that an insurance company, Acuity, owed no duty to defend its insured, Masters Pharmaceutical, in a series of lawsuits brought by cities and counties in West Virginia, Michigan, and Nevada.
The general thread of claims in these suits is that Masters' conduct contributed to the opioid epidemic that continues to plague communities, resulting in the governments’ suffering
Review of Tennessee Bad Faith Law
Written by: Karl Braun
In January, 2021, District Judge, Aleta Trauger, issued a comprehensive and well-reasoned memorandum and order in the case of For Senior Help v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, 515 F. Supp. 3d 787 (M.D. Tenn. 2021). In her lengthy analysis, Judge Trauger skillfully navigated a complex landscape of coverage issues under Tennessee law. For coverage practitioners in Tennessee it is a “must read” in terms of
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules Attorney Fees Not Covered by Commercial Liability Policy
Written by: C. Peter Bolvig
On July 6, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that an award of attorney fees pursuant to a fee shifting provision in a Mass. consumer-protection statute was not covered by a commercial liability policy. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v Poirier, 189 N.E. 3d 306 (2022).
The coverage action arose out of a lawsuit against the named insured (a remediation contractor) resulting from its
South Carolina Supreme Court Adopts Majority Rule in Upholding Validity of Post Loss Assignment
Written by: Thomas Barrow, Esq.
On April 13th the South Carolina Supreme Court elected to adopt the majority rule of the “post loss exception”. This exception dictates an assignment of policy rights executed after a loss already occurred does not require the insurer’s authorization despite that insurer’s consent being expressly required under the terms of the policy.
In PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., the court considered a collection
A Judgment is a Judgment: 11th Circuit relies on “common sense” to allow insured to proceed in bad faith claim against Geico
Written by: Ryland Avery, Esq.
In McNamara v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055 (11th Cir. 2022), the 11th Circuit found that a final judgment that exceeds all available insurance coverage—regardless of whether it results from a consensual settlement or a verdict—constitutes an “excess judgment” that can satisfy the causation element of a bad-faith claim against an insurer under Florida law.
In McNamara, the insured allowed his friend to
Are Individual Insurance Adjusters Liable for Unreasonable Delay or Denial of Claims under Colorado Law?
Written by: Melissa A. Ogburn, Esq.
On March 14, 2022, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its ruling in Skillett v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., infra, definitively deciding whether insurance adjusters themselves can be held liable for unreasonably delaying or denying benefits under a policy of insurance pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116. Colorado has historically recognized bad faith claims against insurance providers under the common law.
The Brave New World of New York Insurance Disclosure
Written by: Joshua T. Reece, Esq.
Edited by: Nicole A. Callahan, Esq.
New York's governor closed 2021 by signing into the law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (CIDA), which placed onerous new insurance disclosure requirements on defendants. The most onerous provisions of CIDA were struck when the law was amended on February 24, 2022. Given this rapidly shifting landscape, we summarize and propose several strategies to successfully manage the brave