Tenth Circuit: Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Csaszar

Exclusion of driver from specific vehicles under an auto insurance policy bars her recovery as a family member under the uninsured motorist provisions when the driver is injured in an accident not involving the scheduled vehicles.

Exclusion from no-fault coverage when excluded from regular policy doesn't violate public policy.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1075.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Certain Undwr at Lloyds London v. Lowen Valley

As the insurer established a plausible theory of harm outside the claim, the insured was required to establish some reasonable basis of apportioning the damage; absent this proof, the insurer has no liability under state law.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-10914-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit: AEI Life v. Lincoln Benefit Life

A conformity statement in a contract, when captioned as a conformity clause and not naming a particular jurisdiction, does not sufficiently manifest the intention of the parties to be bound by the law of a particular jurisdiction to operate as a choice of law clause.

Under center of gravity analysis, New York law governs the transaction.

State public policy interests against wagering insurance contracts establish voidability, not ab initio nullity, and the risk can therefore be incorporated in the drafting.

Notary verification on the instrument of trust formation created a presumption of validity that was not overcome by a challenge by a handwriting expert.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/2/doc/17-224_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/2/hilite/

First Circuit: AIG Property Casualty Co. v. Cosby

Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.), sitting by designation.  And Bill.

Given a more stringent parallel exclusion in the insurance policy, the more laconic exclusion creates an ambiguity sufficient to trigger the presumption for the insured and the resulting duty to defend.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1505P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Capson Physicians Insurance Co v. MMIC Insurance Inc.

Insurance, Contracts


Although state insurance law does not recognize an affirmative duty to inform an insurance company of facts relevant to the contract, state principles of equitable rescission compel a party with superior knowledge of facts relevant to the contract to disclose those facts in order for the contract to withstand challenge.


Capson Physicians Insurance Co  v.  MMIC Insurance Inc.

Ninth Circuit: EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS, LP V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.

Insurance, Contracts


Certified questions to Arizona on insurance policy contract. 

Facts:

Lender lent purchaser money to buy land.  Land was later determined to be without access.  Lender's insurer assessed the impact of the loss of access, and paid the lender that amount.  Lender's subsequent assessment said that the insurer had undervalued the impact.  Lender then purchased the properties with a full-credit bid at sale of estate, and the insurer now maintains that lender's payment to itself absolved the insurer of further liability vis a vis the earlier transaction.

Questions about the relevant boilerplate language certified to state high court.


EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS, LP V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.

Seventh Circuit: Kathryn Marchetti v. Chicago Title Insurance

Property, Insurance


Title insurance satisfied claim and was properly subrogated in ensuing action by redress of the capital losses on a fraudulent transaction for land, so long as all other claims were barred through release or preclusion.


Kathryn Marchetti v.   Chicago Title Insurance

Sixth Circuit: Construction Contractors v. Federal Insurance Company

Contracts, Insurance


Under state law, where an insured company discovers the means of a loss by theft after acquiring an insurance policy against theft, knowledge of prior analogous conduct by the same employee is sufficient to trigger the single-employee loss limitation of the plan, which permissibly incorporates a limitation against prior claims.



Construction Contractors v. Federal Insurance Company

Second Circuit: U.S. v. Gabinskaya

Corporations, Fraud, Conspiracy, Insurance


In state litigation involving no-fault insurance, courts may look beyond the formal indicia of ownership when attempting to determine whether a corporation has been fraudulently incorporated.

Testimony relating to the conspirators' legal advice doesn't speak to knowing participation in the scheme.


U.S. v. Gabinskaya

Fifth Circuit: Linda Singletary v. Prudential Ins Co. of America

ERISA, Insurance, Choice of Law, Preemption


As the cause of action is a statutory one, courts should not construe a challenge to the denial of benefits into an equitable challenge to the adequacy of disclosure of limitations.

General concerns of public policy insufficient to invalidate choice of law provision in pendent cause of action.

ERISA preempts state statute, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with risk pooling.


Linda Singletary v. Prudential Ins Co. of America

Fifth Circuit: Hartford Casualty Insurance Co, et al v. DP Engine

Insurance

Under state law, no duty to defend if the policy excludes professional services and all of the actions described in the complaint require professional training.

Given the many theories of harm and recovery, error to rule that duty to defend was coeval with duty to indemnify.

Counterclaims relied on duty to defend. 


Hartford Casualty Insurance Co, et al v. DP Engine