Insurance Claims And Issues

Insurance Bad Faith Expert -- Author's Note: Commercial Advertising Not Authorized, Never Endorsed.

 **Insurance Bad Faith Expert -- Author's Note:  If you have reached this blog through a list that carries advertising, your computer may or may not be put at risk either through the list or through the advertising.  I do not accept or authorize any commercial advertising of any kind on any list or post.  Placing commercial advertisements with or near any of my web log posts is prohibited.  Further, I do not recommend any products or services advertised with or near any of my posts or any list of my posts.** 

Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud ... Again?

   The Fix is almost in.  Maybe.

   As these words are written, the 2012 State of the Union Address has not yet been given.  2012 is also an election year for the President, of course.

   Obama Administration officials, chiefly the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, are reportedly engaged in pressuring State Attorneys General to release Mortgage Servicers not only from fraud claims or causes of action based on their conduct as Mortgage Servicers, but also from all their liability to all civil claims based on their conduct in lending and securing Mortgages in the first place including subprime Mortgage lending.  See Nelson D. Schwartz and Shaila Dewan, "Political Push Moves a Deal On Mortgages Inches Closer" p. B1, col. 5 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Tuesday, January 24, 2012) .

   The current Banks a/k/a Mortgage Servicers involved in these talks include:

1. Bank of America;
2. Citigroup;
3. JPMorgan Chase;
4. Wells Fargo; and
5. Ally Financial.

The current payment configuration would be for an average payment of "about $20,000" to "[a]bout one million homeowners".  There are 8 million Homeowners currently in Foreclosure.  Id.

   In addition, there are 11 million Homeowners whose home value exceeds the Mortgaged amount.  On average, they alone owe two to two-and-one-half times the average amount payable to 1/19 of all the Homeowners in question.  See id.  Even with that average amount of $20,000.00 which would be paid by the Banks-Mortgage Servicers, in other words, eleven million more Homeowners are still subject to Foreclosure if this deal is accepted, leaving a total of 19 MILLION Homeowners still subject to Foreclosure.

   Some deal.  But that is not all.

   The "average amount" payable by the Banks-Mortgage Servicers fluctuates depending on how many States agree to release the Banks-Mortgage Servicers from unknown liabilities.  It may be less.

   In any event, at this time, the Attorneys General of California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York, among other States, are having none of it.  The Homeowners and all citizens of their States are fortunate to have them on the job.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Robichaux Rulings, Redux (Part 2 of 2).

This continues a post here from January 4, 2012.

 

   The winds and waters of Hurricane Katrina struck Michael and Mary Robichauxes' home, detached garage, shed and personal property.  Their home, which had been located one block north of the Gulf of Mexico, was destroyed.  Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux made a claim on their Homeowner's Policy with Nationwide after the resulting destruction and damage.

   The Robichauxes' Homeowner's Policy with Nationwide provided limits, in pertinent part, of $131,000.00 for Coverage A for their Dwelling, $13,100.00 for Coverage B for Other Structures, and $97,405.00 for Coverage C, or Personal Property Coverage.  Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2011 WL 6224472 *1, ¶ 4 (Miss. December 15, 2011), Download Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Miss. Case No. 2010CA00109, Opinion Filed December 15, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  Their Nationwide Homeowner's Policy carried "a hurricane rider," said the Mississippi Supreme Court, "which covered damage occurring as a result of a 'windstorm during a hurricane.'...  The hurricane endorsement covered damage to the dwelling and other structures, as well as personal property."  Id. 

   The Homeowner's Policy provided coverage for damage to the dwelling and to other structures caused by "all risks," while coverage was extended to damage to personal property which was caused by named perils.  Id. at *7, ¶ 26.

   Finally, the Policy also contained a Flood Exclusion and an Anti-Concurrent Cause Exclusion as well.  See id. at *4, ¶ 16.

   Nationwide at first denied the Robichauxes' claim "based on a finding that the loss was caused by water or water-borne material as defined by the policy."  Id. at ¶ 5.  Nationwide's denial of all coverage was based on various investigative reports "as well as the flood exclusion and anti-concurrent language in the subject policy ...."  Id.

   On an unreported date, Nationwide changed its mind and offered small amounts to settle the Robichauxes' claims "for potential dwelling damage" and for "potential damage to other structures".  The reasons for Nationwide's change of position are not given by the Mississippi Supreme Court in its opinion.  In any event, Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux returned the checks to Nationwide, uncashed.  Id. at *2 ¶ 6.  Instead, they sued Nationwide for "declaratory and injunctive relief, including indemnity under the insurance contract, compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance of the insurance contract, attorneys' fees, and ... [for] fraud and bad faith by the insurer and its agent."  Id. at *1, ¶ 1.

   Following a peripatetic journey from Mississippi State Court to Federal Court and back to State Court again, the Trial Court entered Summary Judgment for Nationwide.  The Robichauxes appealed.

 1.  The Anti-Concurrent Cause Clause Does Not Apply Every Time That Water Appears.

    The Mississippi Supreme Court first held in pertinent part that the Homeowner's Policy at bar is not ambiguous.  The joint appearance in the same Policy of both a Hurricane Endorsement and an Anti-Concurrent Cause Clause does not provide an ambiguity, the Court held.  Id. at *4, ¶ 17.

   However, neither that ruling or the evidence in this particular case answers the question whether wind damaged the Robichauxes' property before Hurricane Katrina's flood left behind only the slabs of their home and their detached  garage:

However, the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether wind damaged the property prior to its destruction by storm surge.  Whether Nationwide had a duty of indemnity under the policy for wind damage, if any, occurring prior to the storm surge presents a triable issue of fact.

Id. at *5, ¶ 18.

  This ruling was applied not only to the Dwelling Coverage Claim under Coverage A, but also to the "Other Structures" Coverage under Coverage B, id. at *6, ¶ 24, and to the Personal Property Coverage Claim under Coverage C.  Id. at *7, ¶ 25.  However, before the Supreme Court could determine whether the Trial Court's Summary Judgment should be reversed on any of these issues, it needed to address another issue:  whether the Policyholders in this case were recovering two times for the same damages. 

 2.  The Anti-Concurrent Cause Exclusion Only Applies in Mississippi, the Mississippi Supreme Court Continues to Hold, When Wind and Noncovered Causes Concur to Cause Damage, Not Just Because There is a Noncovered Cause in a Case.

   The Robichaux Court adhered to its earlier ruling in Corban v. United States Automobile Association, 20 So. 3d 601 (Miss. 2009), and to other settled Mississippi law concerning All Risks Coverage, Named Peril Policies, and Anti-Concurrent Cause Clauses.  Here is how it did so.

   As noted, the Homeowner's Policy which Nationwide issued to Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux contained "All Risks" Coverage for the Dwelling and Other Structures, and "Named Perils" Coverage for their Personal Property.

   In virtually all American jurisdictions, the burden of proof that an Exclusion applies to a claim under an Insurance Policy is a burden belonging to the Insurance Company.  This rule of law applies in Mississippi as in other States, and it was applied to Anti-Concurrent Cause Exclusions by the Mississippi Supreme in Corban.

   As in Corban, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Robichaux held that the burden of proof belongs to the Homeowner's Insurance Company that its Anti-Concurrent Cause Exclusion applies.   Here, however, the Anti-Concurrent Clause does not apply, according to the Court:

The evidence in the present case shows that not all of the damage to the Robichaux residence was caused by the simultaneous convergence of wind and water; accordingly, the ACC clause was inapplicable.

Id. at *5, ¶ 19.

   In sum, in this case, in accordance with universally accepted rules the Policyholder bears the burden of proof on Insurance Coverage in the first place, and the Insurance Company bears the burden of proving that its Exclusions apply:

[U]pon remand, Nationwide has the burden of proving that the other structures under Coverage B were damaged by an excluded peril.  The converse is true with regard to the Robichauxes' burden of proving that personal property under Coverage C suffered accidental, direct, physical loss as a result of one of the enumerated perils, namely windstorm.

Id. at *7, ¶ 28.

 

  Please Read The Disclaimer.

Link to Good Cavalcade of Risks 149!

    A collection of excellent posts on risk in general, and many on Insurance in particular, is coming in the 149 Cavalcade of Risk.  It is being hosted by http://notwithstandingblog.wordpress.com/.  

   And here again is a link to the hosting blog:  http://notwithstandingblog.wordpress.com/  This is a blog written for the reader.  In my exploration of this blog today, I found it informative in substance and courteous, even polite, in tone.  It is well worth spending a few minutes there.  It is not your ordinary blog, as they say.  In my judgment, it is extraordinary.

   Enjoy your internet research and reading! 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

HEALTH INSURANCE: "UNREASONABLE RATE INCREASES" SUBJECT TO REVIEW -- AND MORE.

"Before the Affordable Care Act, consumers were in the dark about their health insurance premiums, because there was no nationwide transparency or accountability.  Now, [health] insurance companies are required to disclose rate increases over 10 percent and justify those increases.  It's time for Trustmark to immediately rescind the rates, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so."

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, quoted in H.H.S. News Release of January 12, 2012, "Affordable Care Act Holding Insurers Accountable for Premium Hikes".   

   Many States' Statutes require Health and other Insurance Companies to submit proposed Premium increases before raising rates and, if permission is not given to raise rates or is given but for a lesser sum, then the originally requested increases cannot lawfully take effect.  Recent examples in particular of Health Insurance Premium increases which State Insurance Commissioners have modified under these powers of approval include Connecticut, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  See id.

   The Affordable Care Act or "ACA" consists of two sets of laws passed by Congress on the same day.  One is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the other is the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.  Together they renumbered and amended the provisions of Section 2794 of the Public Health Service Act which relates to Health Insurance Rate Increase Disclosure and Review.  In it, in basic terms, the HHS Secretary was given certain powers concerning increases of greater than 10 percent or "unreasonable rate increases".

   More specifically, certain authority was given by the ACA to a part of HHS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or "CMS".  (What would we be without our acronyms?)  See 45 C.F.R. §§ 154.101 - 154.301.

   Unlike the prior approval authority given by many States to State Insurance Commissioners over proposed Premium Rate Increase Requests, the ACA provides for after-the-fact authority only to in essence require Health Insurance Companies which have already raised their Premiums by more than 10 percent to "justify" their increase on their websites for all to see.  This is what Secretary Sebelius was referring to in the above-quoted News Release about the ACA mandating disclosure and justification of increases over 10 percent.

   The ACA further provides that if the Health Insurance Company reduces part of its rate increase but the result is still greater than 10 percent, then in that event the Health Insurance Company must submit its new increase for review all over again.  If the resulting amount is not a 10 percent or greater increase then the Health Insurance Company does not need to re-submit its increase for review under the ACA.

   In the case of Trustmark Life Insurance Company, however, and in the News Release quoted at the beginning of this post, the HHS Secretary seemed to announce more than the ACA provides.  You might call it 'political fill,' by which the HHS Secretary filled in the blanks not explicitly addressed by the law but nonetheless described the law's logical conclusion in such matters.

   Trustmark, a Health Insurance Company despite its name, raised Health Insurance Premiums by more than 10 percent in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming.  In the apparent absence of approval of the Trustmark rate increases by the State Insurance Commissioners in those States, the HHS Secretary acted under the ACA to declare Trustmark's increases in those States "unreasonable".  This meant that, under the ACA, Trustmark will be required to now post this fact on its own website alongside its justification for such a Health Insurance Premium increase.

   Yet, as noted, the Secretary did more.  She called on Trustmark to:

1. "immediately rescind the rates" and "issue refunds to consumers or"
2. "publicly explain their refusal to do so."

Clearly, even though the ACA seems to be silent on the subject, if a Health Insurance Company decides to "rescind" its increase after the increase is publicly tagged as "unreasonable," it follows that the Company cannot lawfully keep its 'ill-gotten gains' in that event but should instead return them to the persons who paid those Premiums.  If they instead keep those gains even after renouncing the "unreasonable rate increases," such Health Insurance Companies should of course justify that course of conduct.

   There is nothing in the ACA which I have found which requires this, however.  Common sense and fundamental fairness do require this, whether or not the ACA does.  In addition to announcing action authorized by the ACA in this case, the Health and Human Services Secretary also invoked common sense and fundamental fairness.

   Poor Trustmark.  It probably did not know what hit it.

   It does now.

 The administrative action taken by the Secretary is announced in this News Release, entitled "Affordable Care Act Holding Insurers Accountable for Premium Hikes" (released January 12, 2012).  See, in addition, Robert Pear, "U.S. Seeks Rollback of a Health Insurer's 'Excessive" Rate Increase" p. A11, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Friday, January 13, 2012).

  

The author is Co-Chair of the Health, Life and Disability Insurance Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

NO AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR TEXTING WHILE DRIVING?

"We have an obligation to pay that claim, to protect that innocent bystander, even if you were stupid."  Ms. Loretta Worters, Vice President of the Insurance Information Institute ("III"), quoted by Ann Carrns, "Texting, Driving and Insurance" p. B4, col. 5 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section / Bucks Blog, Saturday, January 14, 2012), edited and posted Online under the headline, "What if Insurers Didn't Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting?".

 

   Should Automobile Liability Insurance Coverage extend to cover texting while driving?

 

   Many standard Exclusions already exist for things like hazardous activity, but the hazardous activity excluded by these standard provisions is usually undertaken by large business organizations.  Specifically excluded hazardous activities are addressed by Pollution Exclusions, for example.

   Of course, there are currently also standard Exclusions in Automobile Liability Insurance Policies for risks which are ordinarily compensated by other types of Insurance such as Workers' Compensation, Employee Indemnification and Employer's Liability, and Fellow Employee Exclusions.

   There is also a standard Exclusion currently in effect which is written to address the risks associated with a type of dangerous driving which Insurers simply will not assume under Automobile Liability Insurance Policies:  Racing.  The standard Racing Exclusion applies to exclude all Automobile Liability Insurance Coverage, in brief, for (1) covered autos while they are being used in professional or organized racing contests, (2) practicing for them, and (3) while the auto in question is being prepared for a racing contest or activity.

   This seems arguably similar to any proposed Exclusion for the dangers or risks inherent in texting while driving the covered auto:  Such an Exclusion would presumably exclude all Automobile Liability Insurance Coverage for covered autos while they are being used simultaneously with the driver's texting.

   If an Exclusion seems inappropriate for any reason, perhaps that is because arguably the nub of the Coverage question is the position that there should never be Automobile Liability Insurance Coverage for any damages caused by the use of a covered auto which would not have occurred but for the driver texting.

   There is simply no good reason why Automobile Liability Insurance Policies should be made to respond to Cover damages resulting from texting activity, in the face of new, express Policy language appropriately written into the standard Automobile Liability Insurance Policy.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Today is Dr. King's Birthday observed.  Remember the good and be well.

Individual Damaged Homeowners No Place to Stand, Court Says, Over HOA Homeowner's Policy.

   Individual Homeowners may have Property Damage claims.  Their Homeowners Association may have a Homeowner's Insurance Policy.  The individual Homeowners may seek to make a claim under it.  Can they?

   The Court in a recent Federal Case said, "No."  In that case, the Court held that individual Homeowners (or, in that case, Condominium Owners)  do not have standing to sue over their HOA's Homeowner's Insurance Policy (or, once again, in that case an "Association of Apartment Owners" Policy).    Peters v. Lexington Insurance Co., 2011 WL 6779598 *4 (D. Hawai'i December 27, 2011), Download Peters v. Lexington Ins. Co. (D. Haw. Case No. 11.00355, Order Filed Dec. 27, 2011 Granting Defendant's Motion for JOP) PUBLIC ACCESS.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

Silence on the Mortgage Fraud Settlement Front, For Now.

This updates posts here and on Insurance Claims Bad Faith Law Blog addressing why and how the Attorney Generals of California, Massachusetts and Nevada, among other jurisdictions, have all rejected the idea of engaging in settlement talks over uninvestigated, unknown liabilities of Mortgage Servicers and their Banks as a part of settlement negotiations over established fraudulent Mortgage lending and servicing practices.

   Talks led by the Iowa Attorney General, with assistance and a push from the Obama Administration, apparently continue with Mortgage Servicers and Lenders to settle potential claims over their Mortgage servicing and lending practices.  The talks apparently continue even without the California Attorney General, and without the approval of Attorneys General from other jurisdictions including Massachusetts and Nevada:

Why strike a deal -- one that would, say, shield banks from new litigation over toxic loans, flawed securitizations and the mess at MERS, the registry that has made such a jumble of land records -- without knowing what happened?

Gretchen Morgenson, "Fair Game / From East And West, Foreclosure Horror Stories" p. 1, col. 1 (New York Times Online, "SundayBusiness" Section, Sunday, January 8, 2012).

   Why, indeed?

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Double Recovery is a Matter of Proof, Not Opinion.

The winds and waters of Hurricane Katrina have spawned more than one blog post, article, book.  So it is with a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Mississsippi.  The new decision has so many features that it has been the subject of commentary on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, and in this continuing post as well.

   Hurricane Katrina struck Michael and Mary Robichauxes' home, detached garage, shed and personal property.  Their home, which had been located one block north of the Gulf of Mexico, was destroyed.  Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux made a claim on their Homeowner's Policy with Nationwide after the resulting destruction and damage.

   The Robichauxes' Homeowner's Policy with Nationwide provided limits, in pertinent part, of $131,000.00 for Coverage A for their Dwelling, $13,100.00 for Coverage B for Other Structures, and $97,405.00 for Coverage C, or Personal Property Coverage.  Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2011 WL 6224472 *1, ¶ 4 (Miss. December 15, 2011), Download Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Miss. Case No. 2010CA00109, Opinion Filed December 15, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  Their Nationwide Homeowner's Policy carried "a hurricane rider," said the Mississippi Supreme Court, "which covered damage occurring as a result of a 'windstorm during a hurricane.'...  The hurricane endorsement covered damage to the dwelling and other structures, as well as personal property."  Id. 

   The Homeowner's Policy provided coverage for damage to the dwelling and to other structures caused by "all risks," while coverage was extended to damage to personal property which was caused by named perils.  Id. at *7, ¶ 26.

   Finally, the Policy also contained a Flood Exclusion and an Anti-Concurrent Cause Exclusion as well.  See id. at *4, ¶ 16.

   Nationwide at first denied the Robichauxes' claim "based on a finding that the loss was caused by water or water-borne material as defined by the policy."  Id. at ¶ 5.  Nationwide's denial of all coverage was based on various investigative reports "as well as the flood exclusion and anti-concurrent language in the subject policy ...."  Id.

   On an unreported date, Nationwide changed its mind and offered small amounts to settle the Robichauxes' claims "for potential dwelling damage" and for "potential damage to other structures".  The reasons for Nationwide's change of position are not given by the Mississippi Supreme Court in its opinion.  In any event, Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux returned the checks to Nationwide, uncashed.  Id. at *2 ¶ 6.  Instead, they sued Nationwide for "declaratory and injunctive relief, including indemnity under the insurance contract, compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance of the insurance contract, attorneys' fees, and ... [for] fraud and bad faith by the insurer and its agent."  Id. at *1, ¶ 1.

   Following a peripatetic journey from Mississippi State Court to Federal Court and back to State Court again, the Trial Court entered Summary Judgment for Nationwide.  The Robichauxes appealed.

Apparent Overpayment of Flood Insurance for a Dwelling is Not a Double Recovery For Uncompensated Damage to Other Structures.

    Dwelling Coverage.  Mr. and Mrs. Robichaux had a Flood Insurance Policy in addition to their Homeowner's Policy.  "The flood policy paid $136,500 for flood damage to the dwelling and $70,400 for flood damage to the contents of the home, amounts which constituted the policy limits."  Id. at *2, ¶ 6.  Even assuming the highest possible value of the Robichauxes' home which was supported by the evidence in the amount of $185,000.00, the Trial Court found that the land value was $53,860.00, resulting in a difference of $131,140.00 in the best possible case for the Policyholders here.  Since there could be no claim for Dwelling Coverage under the Nationwide Policy without double recovery here, the Summary Judgment for Nationwide was affirmed in this regard.  Id. at *6, ¶ 22.

   Other Structures Coverage.  The Trial Court found that the Robichauxes' shed and garage had a value of $5,000.00.  Given that the Robichauxes received $136,500.00 from their Flood Insurer for a dwelling with a value of at most $131,140.00, the Trial Court also "found" that the Robichauxes were effectively over-compensated for their Other Structures as well.

   This ruling was reversed on appeal.  "However, the record does not show that the payment of $136,500 for flood damage was intended to compensate for losses to other structures.  In fact, the estimate prepared by the flood insurance adjuster was described as an 'estimate to replace the dwelling,' with no mention of other structures."  Id. at *6, ¶ 24.  Accordingly, the issue of "whether wind damaged the other structures prior to their destruction by storm surge" was remanded for "a jury determination".  Id.

   Personal Property Coverage.  As noted, the Flood Insurance Carrier here paid its Contents Coverage Policy limits of $70,400.00.  The total damage to the Robichauxes' Personal Property was claimed to be $186,144.00.  Reversal on this issue was required in this case, wrote the Mississippi Supreme Court.  "Since the Robichauxes have not been compensated for the full value of their personal property, we remand this case to the trial court for a jury trial on the issue of whether wind damaged the Robichauxes' personal property prior to the flood damage."  Id. at *7, ¶ 25.

That concludes the holdings of the Mississippi Supreme Court in the Robichaux case on the issue of pleading and proving "double recovery" of insurance benefits.  The Court also addressed Insurance Coverage interpretation issues in this case.

  To be continued ..............

Please Read the Disclaimer.

Title Insurance Coverage for Access to Lake Michigan.

   Title Insurance Policy Exceptions were at issue in Plastow v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 2011 WL 6370570 (W.D. Mich. December 20, 2011), Download Plastow v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. (W.D. Mich. Case No. 1.10cv703, Opinion Filed December 20, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  The Federal District Judge applied the law which is generally applicable to interpreting Insurance Policies, and held in favor of Coverage under the Title Insurance Policy at bar.

   Mr. and Mrs. Plastow owned property with access to Lake Michigan since 1980.  At first, they built a summer cottage on the Property, which they used until 2006.  In 2006, they began using the Property as their primary residence and in 2007 they completed construction and took occupancy of a new house on the Property.  Id. at *2.  Back when they bought the Property in the first place -- the Title Insurance Policy at issue bears a "'Date of Policy'" of December 18, 1979 -- the Plastows bought Title Insurance from the Defendant, Lawyers Title.  Id. at *1.  As is usual and ordinary, this particular Title Insurance Policy contained certain stated "exceptions" to Coverage.  Id. at *2.

   Over time, local inhabitants of a subdivision called Timberlane Terrace used the beach which the Plastows thought they owned exclusively.  In 2008, one of the Timberlane Terrace property owners wrote the Plastows a letter asserting rights to use the beach.  The Plastows sent this letter to the Title Insurance Company and demanded both a defense and indemnity.  Defendant acknowledged receipt of the information but stated no position on Insurance Coverage.  Id. at *3.  Making a long story short, so to speak, some Timberlane Terrace property owners retained an attorney who sent the Plastows a letter.  Thereafter, the Plastows sued all 87 Temple Terrace property owners asserting exclusive rights to the beach on Lake Michigan.  Twenty-five of the defendants from Temple Terrace counterclaimed against Mr. and Mrs. Plastow, who again put the Title Insurance Company on notice.  Once again the Plastows demanded a defense and indemnity.  This time, the Title Insurance Company denied all Coverage, not because the claims from Temple Terrace were not covered in the first place, but because of two of the exceptions in this Title Insurance Policy.  Id. at *5.

   In an interesting application of Insurance Policy rules of interpretation, the Federal Court treated the exceptions as Exclusions are treated under Michigan Insurance Law:  These Title Insurance Policy exceptions were not "clear or specific" and Exclusions which are not clearly and specifically stated raise doubts about their application which, under Michigan law, are to be resolved in favor of the Policyholders.  Accordingly, in this case the Federal Court declared "as a matter of law" that neither exception applied to exclude the Defendant's Duty to Defend or its Duty to Indemnify, and held that the Plastows' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be granted accordingly, and further held that the Defendant was guilty of a Breach of Contract.  Id. at *9 - *11.  The Federal Judge concisely summarized her holding in this case as follows, as the Court entered Judgment for the Plastows:

     In sum, the claims asserted against Plaintiffs by the Timberlane Terrace property owners were covered by the general terms of the Policy, and the coverage was not negated by the coverage exceptions on which Defendant relies.

Id. at *10.

    Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

D&O Wars II.

"Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let's call it an attack on the very productive."

Max Abelson, "Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk 'Imbecile' Attack on Top 1%" (Bloomberg Online, Tuesday, December 20, 2011), quoting what is described as a current Director [Chairman of the Board] and a former CEO of BB&T Corporation, "the ninth-largest U.S. bank".  [Emphasis added to quotation.]  The individual is also a current "Distinguished Professor of Practice" at Wake Forest.

   Some Directors and some Officers are very productive in producing D&O Claims at this time.  See generally "D&O WARS:  CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS PAY PREMIUMS; DIRECTORS, OFFICERS DO NOT," posted here on December 21, 2011.  Without the unfortunate conduct of some Directors and some Officers before and during the Great Economic Fiasco through which we are all now living, there would definitely be many fewer opportunities for Courts to decide D&O Insurance Coverage issues. 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

   Please Read The Disclaimer.

D&O WARS: CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS PAY PREMIUMS; DIRECTORS, OFFICERS DO NOT.

 

Underwriting vs. Claims, again.

    Directors and Officers Insurance Premiums are paid by their corporations.  That of course means that D&O Premiums are really paid by the Shareholders.  See Louise Story, "Ex-Bank Executives Settle F.D.I.C. Lawsuit" (New York Times Online, December 13, 2011).

   D&O Policies are Liability Insurance Policies of course.  D&O Policies provide Insurance Coverage for Defense and Indemnity.  Directors' and Officers' Defense Fees are paid as they are incurred.  The effect is that covered Directors and Officers hire large law firms to provide them with the best possible defense.  See the list of counsel representing the Defendant Officer in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as Receiver for Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Perry, 2011 WL 6178544 (C.D. Cal. December 13, 2011), Download FDIC as Receiver for Indymac Bank, FSB v. Perry (C.D. Cal. Case No. 11.5561, Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Filed Dec. 13, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  Parenthetically, this is not a guarantee of success on the merits.  See id. at *2-*4 (Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Officer, based on California Business Judgment Rule or "BJR," was denied because, as the Court pointed out in its opinion, the California Business Judgment Rule "does not apply to corporate decisions of officers in California," no case has ever applied it to officers under California law, and California statutes on the Business Judgment Rule expressly apply to directors without conferring BJR protection on corporate officers at all).

   In yet the latest visible manifestation of a sometimes covert war between Underwriting and Claims, some Insurance Companies are marketing D&O Coverage to apply to "clawbacks," i.e., to claims for "the return of money people never should have received."  Reuters Breaking Views, "Pushing Back on Clawbacks" p. B2, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Tuesday, December 20, 2011), published in an edited version online with the headline, "Pushing Back on Clawbacks".

   It seems that there is an available argument that Public Policy should prohibit Insurance Coverage for the underlying acts that result in the clawback claims.  Since the Financial Institutions, Reform, Recovery and Reinforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA") provides for clawback claims in cases of "gross negligence" and in cases subject to State causes of action at least equal to "gross negligence," whatever the State causes of action may be labeled and even if the State claims are simply labeled as "negligence," see F.D.I.C. v. Perry, 2011 WL 6178544 at *1 n.1, it seems that Public Policy may be involved to raise an argument against providing the perpetrators with Insurance Coverage against clawback claims.

   This may not mean that Insurance Companies will not necessarily pay Defense or Indemnity expenses for clawback claims, however.  See Reuters Breaking Views in the New York Times of Tuesday, December 20, 2011, supra:  "And courts have ruled that insurance covering similar kinds of improper payments isn't enforceable.  But if insurers want to pay, there's nothing to stop them.  Most have agreed generally not to challenge reimbursement."

      In the end, unfortunately, Underwriting may still insist on marketing the "clawback coverage".

 

   Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

"Put Your Hands Up, Or ... We'll SETTLE!" Not Hardly, Pilgrim.

   The Securities and Exchange Commission "enforcement chief" says settlements leave your client better off than what they could get if they went to Trial.  Edward Wyatt, "House Panel to Examine Settlements By S.E.C." p. B6, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Saturday, December 17, 2011), quoting "Robert Khuzami, the S.E.C.'s director of enforcement".  That is true only when you lose at Trial all the time.

   Anyone who has actually litigated cases knows that you settle when the risks to your client are greater than the chances of recovery.  No active practitioner ever consistently recommends settlements of potentially successful lawsuits because the amount of the settlements is equal to the amount or as much as your clients could get if they went to Trial.

   Evidence of this truth is clear.  Private lawsuits against "banks" return far more money than settlements negotiated by the S.E.C. and other currently staffed Federal agencies.

   What Insurance Coverages such lawsuits will trigger is even now  being litigated, along with the lawsuits themselves.  The plaintiffs are voting with their filing fees that they will be made whole faster and more efficiently by doing the recovery actions themselves, you might say: 

   If the bank settled with the investors using the same loss ratio that was applied in the Bank of America settlement [of a lawsuit filed by private investors], it would cost JPMorgan about $1.9 billion.  Still the bank would have other exposure outstanding.  JPMorgan faces about $31 billion in class-action cases, according to McCarthy Lawyer Links, a legal consulting firm.

   Elizabeth Nowicki, a professor of securities law at Tulane University and a former lawyer at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that the efforts by investors might turn out to be the costliest and most important way that banks are held accountable for their mortgage security creations, because the push for accountability is coming from bank clients.  For instance, in the one mortgage security case the S.E.C. has brought against JPMorgan, the bank settled the allegations in June for $153.6 million.

Louise Story, "Investors Scrutinizing JPMorgan's Mortgages" p. B1, col. 6 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Saturday, December 17, 2011).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Link to Good Cavalcade of Risk Postings 146!

   There is a collection of excellent posts on risk in general, and many on Insurance in particular, at 146 Cavalcade of Risk.  Enjoy your internet research and reading!

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Why Medical Loss Ratios Matter.

   Under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its Regulations which are being finalized at this time, Health Insurance Companies must spend a minimum of 80% of their payments on actual Health benefits for Medical Care for sick Insureds.  That is the Medical Loss Ratio.  If Health Insurance Companies covered by the Act and its Regulations spend less than the Ratio of  Benefits to so-called Administrative Expenses or Overhead, they will have to rebate Premiums to Policyholders. 

   Medical Loss Ratios clearly matter.  The way they work is explained further in an excellent post by Bruce Japsen on Prescriptions Blog on the New York Times website, "Final Rules Set for Insurers on Spending Ratios," posted on December 12, 2011.

The author is Co-Chair of the Health, Life and Disability Insurance Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Late Notice Defense of Excess Carrier to Hurricane Claim Rejected.

   Banta Properties, Inc. is a property management company.  It purchased Primary Property Insurance Coverage from General Star and Excess Coverage from Arch Specialty.  The Arch Specialty Excess Policy was 'following form,' i.e., it followed the forms of the underlying General Star Policy and provided the same Coverage except on an Excess basis in this case.

   Immediately after incurring damage from Hurricane Wilma on or about October 24, 2005, Banta gave notice to General Star and filed a claim with General Star for Property Damage Coverage.  Banta Properties, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., 2011 WL 5928478  *1 (S.D. Fla. November 23, 2011),  Download Banta Props., Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10.61485, Order Denying Defendants MSJ Entered Nov. 22, Filed Nov. 23, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  In March, 2008, General Star "tendered the policy limits of $2.5 million under that [General Star] insurance contract".    Banta then "filed an insurance claim against Arch for its excess coverage."  Id.

   Arch reserved rights to deny all Coverage.  In pertinent part, Arch asserted "prejudice" from late notice of Banta's Hurricane Claim.  With its reservation of rights in place, Arch inspected the properties.  Banta filed a Proof of Loss.  Arch did not pay.  Banta filed suit against Arch for Declaratory Relief and for alleged Breach of Contract.  Arch defended and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on late notice of Banta's Hurricane Claim.

   The District Court summarized Florida law concerning late notice under an insurance policy.  Florida law raises a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the Insurance Company from late notice.  As noted, the presumption of prejudice from late notice is rebuttable.  Id. at *2.

   The District Court thereafter discussed two ways in which an Insured may rebut the presumption of prejudice "to survive a motion for summary judgment.  First, an insured may rebut the presumption by showing that another insurer using competent individuals made a complete investigation of the claim.  [Citation omitted.]  Second, an insured may show that the insurer had access to 'substantial information' regarding the claim, creating an issue of fact of whether the delay prejudiced the insurer."  Id. at *4.

   Here, General Star as the Primary Carrier thoroughly investigated Banta's Hurricane Damage Claim.  To say again, Arch was Banta's Excess Carrier.  Nonetheless, Arch retained consultants to inspect the properties where Banta claimed that it had incurred Damage.  Banta "also provided evidence" that Arch's inspectors/consultants inspected Banta's properties but that they did not inspect many of the items of Damage claimed by Banta or review any repair invoices for already completed repairs.  Further, "Arch's consultants stated that they did not review any documents from General Star's investigation record, so these consultants never saw the photographs or reports made by General Star's several consultants [record references omitted]."  Id. at *2.  [Emphasis added.]

   On this record, Arch, the Excess Carrier, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on late notice.  Arch argued in support of its motion that in this case, Banta's notice of loss to Arch was untimely as a matter of Florida law.  The District Court held that Banta's notice to Arch did not fall into that category in this case based on past case law, but that, even if it did, Florida law even then provides for a rebuttable presumption of prejudice from the late notice.  In this case, Banta had rebutted the presumption.  Arch's Motion was denied.  Id. at *4.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

Current Computer Models Predict Premium Increases, Not Hurricanes.

   Hurricanes are not the only Catastrophes.  Today is Pearl Harbor Day.  Remember Pearl Harbor and remember, too, that everyone's life is entitled to respect if only because all our lives, already too short, are every one subject to unexpected Catastrophes and losses.

    The role that computer models play in current Insurance Premium Rate Requests is again being looked at.  This is a recurring, if sporadic, occurrence.  See, for example, the post here on June 29, 2011, "More Computer Models Print Out In Put:  This Time, Coverage?"

   The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office sent a letter to the Massachusetts insurance rating bureau on November 17, 2011.  In it, the A.G. pointed out her position that "faulty computer-generated hurricane models have contributed to unnecessarily high home insurance rates for property owners across [Massachusetts]."  Mark Alan Lovewell, "A.G. Faults Hurricane Models For Inflating Homeowner Insurance Rates" (Vineyard Gazette, published online on Friday, December 2, 2011).

   Although the A.G.'s letter itself does not seem to be on the A.G.'s website, a Press Release dated November 17, 2011 is accessible there.  In it, the Massachusetts Attorney General makes clear both that transparency does not exist in making these computer models, and that accumulated actual evidence is ignored in the input into these models.  These are real problems for homeowners who must pay higher Premiums:

Most Massachusetts insurers use private prediction models to estimate expected hurricane losses when rating and underwriting a policy.  AG Coakley noted in her letter that the insurers are not appropriately detailing how the companies are using these models, and no regulatory body has reviewed most of these models to ensure that they are suitable for use in Massachusetts.  Not only are models not being reviewed, the Commissioner is allowing the use of models that have been rejected in other states, such as Florida.  Historically, these rejected models have inflated expected losses well above actual experience.

 Massachusetts Attorney General's Press Release of November 17, 2011 concerning her letter to the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Insurance Rating Bureau, entitled "AG Coakley Urges Hearing on Excessive Homeowner Insurance Rates / Estimates Possible Overcharges of Half a Billion Dollars Due to Untested Hurricane Models".  Both of these points are made in the linked Vineyard newspaper report as well.   Parenthetically, so-called 'information asymmetry' or unbalanced access to information used in the writing of Insurance and in the handling of Insurance Claims is also a frequent subject of current commentary.  See, e.g., "Asymmetrical Information Overload" posted on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on November 22, 2011. 

   It is reasonable to expect an even greater increase in the use of allegedly faulty computer-generated models of catastrophe risk, along with the leverage that comes from information asymmetry.  Through the first nine months of 2011, Property and Casualty Insurance Companies in the United States experienced "catastrophe-related losses" that doubled all of the catastrophe claim payouts of 2010, or $38,600,000,000.00 ($38.6 Billion) in the first nine months of this year.  See "U.S. P/C Insurers' Catastrophe Losses Top $38 Billion" (Insurance Journal, published online on Monday, December 5, 2011).

The author of this post is also Co-Author of "CATClaims:  Insurance Coverage For Natural And Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters West).

Please Read The Disclaimer. 

Health Insurance Companies Ration Health Care.

   There are those who say that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which they call "Obamacare," rations Health Care.

   This would not be a new thing.  It would only change the identity of "who" rations our Health Care.

   Before the Act takes full effect, Health Insurance Companies ration Health Care with Exclusions and Premiums, as they have always done before.  See the interview with Dr. Donald M. Berwick, outgoing Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, by Robert Pear, "Health Official Takes Parting Shot at 'Waste'" p. 25, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Sunday, December 4, 2011).

   Changing the identity of "who" rations Health Care changes the calculation of rationing.  In private hands, rationing Health Care is unseen.  Each of us can judge for ourselves based on our own experience whether the effect of that method is 'good'.  In public hands, the government is required to operate with transparency, as they say.  Sometimes, perhaps always, sunlight is in fact the best disinfectant.

The author is Co-Chair of the American Bar Association's Health, Life and Disability Insurance Subcommittee.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON BAD FAITH LITIGATION: ...

 

... AND IN THIS POST:  FLORIDA SINKHOLE CLAIMS.

    Florida Statute Sections 627.707, 627.7072, 627.7073, and 627.7074 prescribe much of the presentation and handling of Sinkhole Claims.  It has just been held that Sinkhole Claim Handling under a Homeowner's Policy strictly as these Florida Statutes prescribe, does not confer immunity or a complete defense to a Breach of Contract Claim.  Cook v. First Liberty Insurance Corp., 2011 WL 5834743 * 2 (M.D. Fla. November 21, 2011), Download Cook v. First Liberty Insurance Corp. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.10CV02634, Order on Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment Filed Nov. 21, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.

   The reasoning of this decision is equally supportive of a similar ruling on an Insurer Bad Faith Claim, i.e., that following these Florida Sinkhole Statutes' prescriptions neither confers immunity nor is a complete defense. 

 

On the day of this post, Wednesday, November 30, 2011, we will begin the American Conference Institute's 2011 Advanced National Forum on Bad Faith Litigation.   I will be presenting on two panels.  I look forward to seeing you too in Orlando!

     Please Read The Disclaimer.

Health Insurance Companies May Regret Mandate Deal.

 

   The Health Insurance industry thought that it got more than it gave up while it was doing deals with the White House before Health Insurance bills were submitted to Congress.  Most famously, Health Insurance Companies:

• Agreed not to contest Preexisting Conditions in most cases once the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took effect.
• Agreed not to charge higher Premiums to certain Policyholders and Employees who had Coverage with Employer-based Health Insurance.
• Agreed to a potentially more difficult procedure in order to obtain Rescission than they now enjoy in many States.

 

   In exchange, the Health Insurance Companies got more than they probably ever thought that it was possible for them to get:  Mandatory Policyholders, i.e., a mandate in the new Federal Law which would effectively require people to have Health Insurance and therefore require them to pay a Premium to a Health Insurance Company.

   That is the mandate which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a supposedly final say on whether a mandate to obtain Health Insurance Coverage is valid and enforceable.  See, e.g., Timothy Jost, post of November 14, 2011 on HealthAffairs Blog; "Framing the Supreme Court Case," HealthLawProf Blog post on November 15, 2011; and Mark Hall, "The Importance of the Individual Mandate ...," and related posts and Comments, itself posted on November 4, 2011 on HealthAffairs Blog.

   Many observers, me included, predict that the current five-person majority on the High Court will strike down the mandate, for whatever reason.  The question then becomes:  Is the mandate provision severable from the rest of the PPACA?  If it is severable, then that would leave intact all the things that America's Health Insurance Companies were giving up, only so that they could get a mandate with a huge pool of new Policyholders who would collectively pay enormous amounts of money in Premiums for Health Coverage.  Thus, if there is no mandate in the future, that would mean that Health Insurance Companies got nothing in exchange for things like those which I have just listed, among others:

• Coverage for Preexisting Conditions.
• Waiver of Premium Increases for Coverage for various claims.
• Obedience to Rescission laws which are less favorable than existing Rescission laws in many States, and in almost all Health Insurance Policies and Plans.

   The possibility that they gave up much, and will get nothing in exchange, is now sinking in to the consciousness of many of America's Health Insurance Companies.  See Julian Pacquet, "Insurers 'Terrified' of Supreme Court Ruling on Healthcare Reform Law" (The Hill / Healthwatch Blog, posted Tuesday, November 22, 2011).

 

The author is Co-Chair of the American Bar Association's Health, Life and Disability Insurance Subcommittee.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

 

Florida Health Premiums ... Hurricane Season Not Over Yet. BUT WAIT!

   From a blog report with many links comes unwanted news:  Florida Health Insurance Premiums are "skyrocketing":  Robert Trigaux, Business Editor of the St. Petersburg Times in his Venture Blog, "Florida's Still Losing the War on Skyrocketing Health Premiums" posted November 17, 2011.  And by the way, Hurricane Season is not officially over yet, either.

   While this post was being written and before going to press, so to speak, the Obama Administration responded to the rising tide of Premium Rate Hikes in Health Insurance.  Using a provision of the newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for the first time since the provision just took effect, the Department of Health and Human Services is forcing a Health Insurer to publicly justify a 12% Premium increase on 5,000 people who are employed by small businesses in Pennsylvania.  Previously, Health and Human Services reviewed the same insurer's 11% increase in Montana and determined that there, the increase was justifiable.  Now, the affected Health Insurer is required by law to publicly justify its Premium increase in Pennsylvania within 10 days.  See Noam N. Levey, "Obama Administration Calls on Health Insurer to Reduce Rate Hike / Using a Tool in the New Healthcare Law For the First Time, Officials Call the 12% Increase 'Unreasonable'" (Los Angeles Times Online at latimes.com, Tuesday, November 22, 2011).

    The new Federal Healthcare Law does not give the Federal Government power to actually roll back Health Insurance Premium increases.  It gives the Federal Government the new power to force affected Health Insurance Companies to publicly justify why they want the increases.  See id.  Perhaps sunlight is just what they need.

   The author is Co-Chair of the Health, Life and Disability Insurance Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

 

Collapsing Ethanol Production: No Business Interruption Found, New Collapse Trial.

     KAAPA Ethanol owned and managed an ethanol production plant.  KAAPA bought an "All Risk" Property Insurance Policy from Affiliated FM Insurance Company.

   Right after ethanol production began, the KAAPA plant stopped producing ethanol.  "[S]torage tanks began to lean, their foundations began showing visible signs of distress, and their supporting concrete walls sunk into the ground."  KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., 2011 WL 5217207 *1 (8th Cir., Opinion Filed November 3, 2011), Download KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. (8th Cir. Case Nos. 10.1929, 10.2071, Opinion Filed Nov. 3, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS. KAAPA claimed Insurance Coverage including Business Interruption Coverage.  Affiliated denied the entire claim, "citing the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions."  Id. at *2.

   At Trial, a Jury awarded KAAPA $4 Million for its repair costs and other claimed losses, but gave KAAPA a zero on the Business Interruption Claim.  Id. at *1.

   Both KAAPA and Affiliated appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Federal Appellate Court addressed only "collapse" issues of Insurance Coverage under All Risks Property Insurance Policies governed by Nebraska law.

   The District Judge instructed the Nebraska Insurance Coverage Jury in that case as follows:

   16. The insurance policy provides coverage for loss or damage caused by collapse. “Collapse” means substantial impairment of the structural integrity of a building or any part of a building. A structure or part of a structure does not need to fall down or be in imminent danger of falling down in order for it to have “collapsed,” nor do you need to find that the structure was either abandoned or taken out of use.

Id. at *2.  [Emphasis added.]  Affiliated objected to the italicized sentence in the Trial Court's Jury Instruction 16.  Affiliated argued that this was not a correct statement of Nebraska law on the subject of when a covered collapse takes place.   The appellate court agreed that this Jury Instruction was erroneous.  Further, the appellate court held that the Trial Court's error "prejudiced Affiliated's defense of this critical coverage issue; therefore, a new trial is necessary."  Id. at *4.

   According to the Eighth Circuit panel in this case, Nebraska already follows the majority view that a covered "collapse" under an All Risks Property Insurance Policy requires "material impairment."  Id.  Noting that collapse coverage has appeared in First-Party Insurance Policies for more than half a century, Courts have split over whether collapse coverages should include an "imminence" requirement.  The Courts that impose an "imminence" requirement on collapse coverage hold that "that requirement 'is consistent with the policy language and the reasonable expectations of the insured' and 'avoids both the absurdity of requiring an insured to wait for a seriously damaged building to fall and the improper extension of coverage' that would convert the policy 'into a maintenance agreement.'”   Id. at *5, quoting a California Court and thereafter citing to cases decided in New Jersey, the Ninth Circuit, the Third Circuit, and Delaware.

   In KAAPA Ethanol, a diversity case, the Eighth Circuit predicted that the Nebraska Supreme Court "would adopt some sort of imminence requirement in applying the material impairment standard" to determine whether there was a covered "collapse" under All Risks Property Insurance Policies.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a New Trial on Collapse Coverage Issues in that case.  Id. at *6.

   PACER, the Online Docket of the Federal Courts, reflects that both a Motion for Rehearing and a Motion to Certify Question of State Law have been filed and are pending since this decision was entered.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

Reconsideration Motion Okay When Reasonable Expectations Doctrine Was Arguably Misapplied.

   In Dare Investments, LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2011 WL 5513196 (D.N.J. November 10, 2011) Download Dare Investments, LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. (D.N.J. Case No. 10.6088, Order Filed November 10, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, STATED NOT FOR PUBLICATION Download And Opinion Filed of even date (November 10, 2011) ALSO PUBLIC ACCESS, the Federal Court held that a Motion for Reconsideration was correctly filed and argued, because it was based on an arguable misapplication of law by the Court the first time.

   The legal doctrine applied in that case is the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations for Insurance Coverage in New Jersey.

   The Federal Court in that case also held, however, that it was right the first time.  The Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

 

   The author will co-present "Disasters in Insurance:  The Sequel" on Friday, November 18, 2011 live from Noon to 1:00 PM ET via the West Legal Education Center website.  Thereafter the Webinar will be available on demand, 24/7, on the website.  Here is a handy link to the prequel Webinar broadcast live on October 21, 2011:  http://westlegaledcenter.com/program_guide/course_detail.jsf?courseId=41335829

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

Claim Adjuster's Individual Liability: Alleged Claim Handling Misrepresentations Prevent Remand.

   Claims adjusters employed by Insurance Companies in Florida have always been like everybody else in that they are "susceptible to direct and individual liability for an intentional tort, including a fraud."  Leonhardt v. GEICO Casualty Co., 2011 WL 5359840 *2 (M.D. Fla. October 28, 2011), Download Leonhardt v. GEICO Casualty Co. (M.D. Fla. October 28, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.

   However, in that case the Federal District Judge held that joinder of a Florida claims adjuster in a Bad Faith case filed against the adjuster and the Insurance Company she works for, totally defeated Federal diversity jurisdiction.

   The case involves alleged Bad Faith claims handling.  The Plaintiff alleged that the individual claims adjuster intentionally misrepresented "the amount of the available insurance coverage for a covered claim against the insured," among other things.  Id. at *3.  These claims defeated diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in Federal District Court and required remand to the Florida State Court for determination of the entire Bad Faith case.

   To put the holding in this case another way, the Federal Court decided that the Insurance Company did not demonstrate "clearly and convincingly that [the Plaintiff] cannot possibly succeed" on his claims against the adjuster.  Id. at *1.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Counting All Hurricanes! Forecasters Fumble, Rockies Crumble, Florida Humble.

   One of the enduring legacies of the George W. Bush Administration was its award of lucrative (no-bid?) contracts to meteorologists located at Colorado State in the Rocky Mountains to issue Hurricane forecasts for Florida.

   Now it is reported that Hurricanes were, shall we say, 'under-reported' in past years.  See Ken Kaye, published in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, November 6, 2011 under the headline, "Storm of Controversy:  Did Experts Miss 75 Hurricanes?" p. B1, col. 1, published online at Florida Sun-Sentinel on Saturday, November 5, 2011 as "Hurricane Center:  More Than 240 Tropical Systems Missed". 

   If Hurricanes and other Weather Disasters are not forecast accurately, how can Homeowners, Property Owners, Landlords, Tenants, and their Insurance Companies reasonably be expected to adequately prepare for Claims which follow these Disasters?

   The author will co-present "Disasters in Insurance:  The Sequel" on Friday, November 18, 2011 live from Noon to 1:00 PM ET via the West Legal Education Center website.  Thereafter the Webinar will be available on demand, 24/7, on the website.  Here is a handy link to the prequel Webinar broadcast live on October 21, 2011:  http://westlegaledcenter.com/program_guide/course_detail.jsf?courseId=41335829

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Derivative Investments Dive, Reinsurance Raises Warren Buffett Insurance Profits.

   In the past, Mr. Warren Buffett famously described derivatives as weapons of financial destruction.  Now, derivatives are partially accountable for a drop in 3Q 2011 Profit reported by Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett's huge conglomerate.  See "Derivatives Cut Into Berkshire Hathaway's Profit" p. B5, col. 1 (Reuters Report published in New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Saturday, November 5, 2011).

   Other factors nibbled at the margins, however.  "But Berkshire was hurt, like many other insurance companies in particular, by sharp declines in a broad range of market values."  Id.

   Reinsurance provides Mr. Buffett's companies with protection against profit-killing policies, however (pun intended).  "Profits in the insurance business rose as a rebound in reinsurance results offset sharp declines at the auto insurer Geico."  Id.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

Medical-Loss Ratios Requirement of Paying More Healthcare Expenses, ...

... Less in Overhead, Does NOT Reduce Health Insurance Companies' Profitability.  Good Payments Mean Good Business.

   One of the comparatively few provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in effect now, as distinct from the many provisions taking effect in say 2014 (who agreed to that?), is a provision known as "medical-loss ratios" which requires Health Insurance Companies to spend more on Healthcare benefits and less on administrative 'overhead' than they do now.

   Health Insurance Companies faced the coming of this provision with fear and trepidation.  Now that the provision is in effect, fear and trepidation have turned to recognition that they are still making profits.  Humana, along with the other major Health Insurance Companies, is reporting higher profits than anticipated.  See "Profit Rises at Humana, And So Does Its Forecast" p. B9, col. 1 (Copyrighted Associated Press Report printed in New York Times Nat'l ed., Tuesday, November 1, 2011).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

California Title Insurance First-Party Coverage: ...

,,, Held:  Not for Perfect Title, No Estoppel.

   In Dollinger Deanza Assoc's v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2011 WL 405915 *7-*8 (Cal. 6th DCA September 9, 2011),  Download Dollinger Deanza Associates v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. (Cal. 6th DCA Case No. H035576, Opinion Filed Sept. 9, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, NOT OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED IN CALIFORNIA, the California Sixth District Court of Appeal held that Title Insurance is not issued in California for perfect Title but for Indemnity vs. a defect in Title.

   Further, there is no exception that applies to Title Insurance Companies from the rule that Insurance Coverage cannot be made to exist by Estoppel or Waiver.  Title Insurance is a First-Party Coverage and there is no exception to the general rule for Title Insurance, the California Appellate Court held.  Id. at *14-*15.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Wal-Mart Cuts Health Care Insurance Coverage for 'Associates' (Employees).

   Looks like people employed by Wal-Mart must go back to Emergency Rooms if they are going to receive any Health Care.  Reportedly Wal-Mart is cutting back on certain Health Insurance Coverage for new hires and increasing Premium contributions from its existing employees.  Some if not all of its new hires will receive no contribution from Wal-Mart to Health Insurance Coverage.  See Steven Greenhouse and Reed Abelson's report with the understated headline (some might call it misleading, note that headlines are not ordinarily supplied by the reporters who report the piece and are thus not their fault in that case), "Wal-Mart Cuts Some Health Care Benefits" p. B1, col. 2 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Friday, October 21, 2011).

   Before Wal-Mart started contributing to Employees' Health Insurance Plans a couple of years ago, it was notorious how its Employees received Health Care, if at all, from the nation's increasingly crowded hospital emergency rooms.  Looks like we are back to that same old story.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Hurricane Irene and other Catastrophe Claims Flood The Travelers.

  Claims from Hurricane Irene, and other Catastrophe Claims, reportedly have reduced The Travelers' 3Q profit by 67%.  That reportedly reduced 3Q profit down to $333,000,000.00 or $33Million.

   However, it is also reported that Premium Rate Increase Requests for Business Insurance Coverages in particular rose in the same 3Q to $5,600,000,000.00 or $5.6Billion.  Erik Holm, "TRAVELERS / Storms Hit Bottom Line" p. C2, col. 4 (Wall Street Journal, Thursday, October 20, 2011)(subscription required to read entire report online).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Title Insurance Lawyer's Legal Conclusions Not Admissible Expert Opinions.

   In an opinion nearly as long as the Texas Panhandle, a Federal Magistrate Judge in Texas held that a Title Insurance Lawyer could not testify to legal conclusions, not even as an Expert Witness offering 'Opinion' testimony.  Fidelity Nat'l Title Insurance Co. v. Doubletree Ptrs., L.P., 2011 WL 4715174 *6-*7 (E.D. Tex. October 5, 2011), Download Fidelity Nat'l Title Insurance Co. v. Doubletree Ptrs., L.P. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 4.08 CV 243, Memorandum Opinion and Order Filed October 5, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  This holding is consistent with the overwhelming majority, perhaps universal view, that an Expert Witness is not permitted to testify to legal conclusions.

   Another consistent holding in this case came after a finding (or holding) of no Insurance Coverage.  Under Texas law, there could be no actionable breach of the implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing without a breach of the Insurance Contract.  Id. at *18.

Please Read The Disclaimer.