Top Legal News » Insurance Law

Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich

admin — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:08:34 +0000

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Contracts, Insurance Law, Securities Law) A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court’s remand of plaintiff’s class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA’s exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff’s claim “related to the rights, duties,…and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to…a security,” as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund

admin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:00:23 +0000

(U.S. 2d Cir., ERISA, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.

Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:59:54 +0000

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the ‘201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants’ motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury’s verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.

Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:59:52 +0000

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Insurance Law) In an appeal from the district court’s order granting respondent’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion based on newly discovered evidence that an arbitrator who had resigned was, in fact, able to rejoin the arbitration panel prior to the district court’s decision on whether to convene a new panel or order a replacement arbitrator, the order is affirmed where: 1) the rule articulated in Marine Products Export Corp. v. M.T. Globe Galaxy, 977 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1992) 150 that, absent “special circumstances,” if a vacancy arises on an arbitral panel due to the death of an arbitrator prior to the rendering of an award, a new panel should be convened 150 does not apply to a vacancy occasioned by a resignation; and 2) in the instant case, the district court’s decision either to reappoint the arbitrator who had resigned, or, in the alternative, to direct petitioner to appoint a replacement was proper pursuant to 9 U.S.C. section 5.

RLI Ins. Co. v. All Star Transp., Inc.

admin — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:58:31 +0000

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Contracts, Insurance Law, Transportation) In an interpleader action by an insurance company to determine its obligations to pay truckers hired by its bankrupt insured under a surety bond, summary judgment for plaintiff-insurer is affirmed where Form BMC 84, which governed such bonds, plainly stated that the face value of the bond was the sum of $10,000 for all claims combined.

Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:58:05 +0000

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law, Professional Malpractice) District court’s order issuing a stay of federal proceedings in an insurer’s request for declaratory judgment, claiming that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor due to his disappearance in more than 350 medical malpractice claims, is reversed and remanded as it was an abuse of discretion to stay this action.

Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:58:05 +0000

Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:58:05 +0000

Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:58:05 +0000

Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.

admin — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:56:51 +0000

(Cal., Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In a dispute over a homeowner’s insurance coverage, arising from plaintiff’s suit against a mother and her son for being sexually molested by the son in their home, the court rules that an exclusion of coverage for the intentional acts of “an insured,” read in conjunction with a severability or “separate insurance” clause like the one at issue in this case, creates an ambiguity which must be construed in favor of coverage that a lay policyholder would reasonably expect. Here, a lay insured would reasonably anticipate that under a policy containing such a clause, each insured’s coverage would be analyzed separately, so that the intentional act of one insured would not, in and of itself, bar liability coverage of another insured for the latter’s independent act that did not come within the terms of the exclusion. Therefore, the homeowner was not precluded form coverage for any personal role she played in her son’s molestations of plaintiff merely because the son’s conduct fell within the exclusion for intentional acts.