For the second time in two months, a federal court in Washington state has rejected an insurer’s attempt to avoid the consequences of its wrongful failure to defend its insured by effectively changing its mind and later—in this case much later—offering a defense. Continue Reading In Washington, insurers can’t “unring the bell” after wrongful denial of coverage
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington again demonstrates the decidedly pro-policyholder nature of insurance-coverage law in the state of Washington. Like so many coverage cases, 2FL Enterprises, LLC v. Houston Specialty Insurance Co., arose from underlying construction-defect litigation. Continue Reading In Washington, an insurer cannot refuse to defend, change its mind, and still expect to control the defense or avoid bad faith
Keeping your fingers crossed, with perhaps a little truculence thrown in for good measure, should not guide an insured’s answers in filling out an insurance application. Rather, as the decision in a recent case from federal district court in Florida shows, insureds filling out renewal applications should view the world through a pessimistic eye. Continue Reading Forget the rose-colored glasses when filling out insurance applications
Yesterday, the Oregon Court of Appeals dealt a hefty blow to insurance companies seeking to exclude coverage for property damage to multi-family dwellings and for awards of attorney fees. In Hunters Ridge Condominium Ass’n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLC, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an insurance company’s “Multi-Unit New Residential Construction” exclusion was unclear as to whether it excluded coverage for property damage to both residential-only and mixed-use condominiums. Given there were two plausible ways to read the exclusion, the Oregon Court of Appeals held the exclusion must be construed against the insurance company. Continue Reading Not so fast insurance company, that judgment against your insured may in fact be covered
You’re sued. You tender the defense of the lawsuit to your insurer, but it refuses to defend you. You settle the case and then file a lawsuit against your insurer for what it should have paid to defend you while sitting out of the fight. You win in the trial court, in the Court of Appeals, and the Oregon Supreme Court. Under Oregon law, you get your attorney fees for this fight with the insurer about attorney fees, right?
Not if, despite all appearances, you were not the insured, but really a “self insurer” all this time, fighting with your insurer about paying for a fair share of your own defense costs. That’s what one Oregon insurer recently argued, and what the Oregon Court of Appeals soundly rejected in a decision issued today. Continue Reading Oregon Court of Appeals rejects insurer’s attempt to cast its own insured as just another insurer
Back in August 2015, I wrote this post about the Oregon Court of Appeals opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., where the court confirmed that Oregon’s broad duty to defend extended to parties claiming rights as “additional insureds.” Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that decision, broadly holding that “regardless of ambiguity or lack of clarity, the duty to defend is triggered if the complaint’s allegations, reasonable interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy.” Continue Reading Oregon Supreme Court reaffirms broad nature of the duty to defend, even in the face of ambiguous or unclear allegations
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Oregon overruled Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine (1973) and paved the way for a more commonsense approach to negotiating stipulated judgments. Stipulated judgments have been a well-worn, though somewhat perilous, mechanism for insureds to resolve liability claims against them when their insurers defend in bad faith. In doing so, however, the parties to the stipulated judgment were tasked with navigating needlessly technical steps along the way. In Brownstone Homes Condo. Ass’n. v. Capital Specialty Ins. Co., the court removed one of the insurer’s “gotcha” defenses to an otherwise valid stipulated judgment. Continue Reading Oregon Supreme Court eases the path to hold insurers accountable for bad-faith practices
Nevada recently became the latest jurisdiction to protect the interests of policyholders by adopting the so-called Cumis counsel rule. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen (Sept. 24, 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court held that insurers are required to pay for independent counsel for insureds facing liability claims when there is a conflict of interest between the insured and insurer. In so holding, Nevada joined the list of states to ensure that policyholders have the benefit of being represented by counsel that has only the policyholders’ interests in mind—and not those of the insurer. Continue Reading Nevada Joins States Protecting Insureds from Lawyers Serving Two Masters
A recent opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida highlights the importance of properly pleading claims so that insurance coverage is triggered.
In Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, LLC, Cloutier Brothers, Inc. leased a crane and crane operator from Royal Crane, LLC. During construction, a truss fell from the crane and injured a construction worker. The worker sued Royal Crane, asserting claims for negligence, strict liability, and gross negligence. Royal Crane tendered its defense of the lawsuit to Cloutier under an indemnity clause in the parties’ rental agreement. Cloutier declined the tender “at the behest” of its insurer, Mid-Continent.
So Royal Crane sued, bringing a third-party action against Cloutier for contractual indemnification and breach of the rental agreement. Cloutier tendered the defense of these claims to Mid-Continent, which denied the duty to defend under the exclusion for Cloutier’s potential obligation to pay “by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” The poison pill for coverage turned on Royal Crane’s failure to plead around this exclusion. Continue Reading Florida Court of Appeal case serves as a reminder to be mindful of how claims are pleaded
On August 19, 2015, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer’s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an “additional insured.”
Contracting parties rely on indemnity agreements and additional insured status to protect against liability arising from the other party’s negligence. Insurers, however, frequently ignore or summarily deny tenders from parties who qualify as additional insureds under the policies they issued. That is exactly what happened in West Hills. Continue Reading Oregon’s broad duty to defend extends to “additional insureds”