Southern District of Texas Rules That Appraisal Award Does Not Establish Liability for Covered Loss Under Policy

 

 In a recent case, the Southern District of Texas held that an appraisal award does not establish liability for a covered loss under a policy. The case, Hoff v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., involved a dispute between Flemming Hoff and Meridian Security Insurance. Hoff requested an appraisal after filing suit, but the appraisal award did not differentiate between covered and uncovered losses or determine the timing of the loss. Hoff argued that the award entitled him to judgment on his breach of contract claim, but the court denied his motion, stating that the purpose of the appraisal was to determine damages, not liability. This ruling highlights the need for insurers to clarify the scope and purpose of appraisals in order to separate damages and liability disputes. Read more>>> Southern District of Texas Holds that Appraisal Award is Inconclusive of Whether a Loss is Covered | Cozen O’Connor’s Property Insurance Law Observer 

 

Court of Appeals of Georgia Addresses Limits of Mirror Image Acceptance Rule in Time-Limited Settlement Demands

 

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently issued an opinion in Pierce v. Banks, clarifying the boundaries of the mirror image acceptance rule for time-limited settlement demands. The case involved a plaintiff who issued a demand to settle a motor vehicle accident claim within specific conditions designed to potentially generate a bad faith claim against the insurer. The insurer attempted to accept the demand but did not meet all the requirements. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the insurer’s failure to adhere precisely to the demand constituted a rejection and counteroffer. The defendants have filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court of Georgia to review the case and provide clarity on technical issues and requirements within time-limited demands. In the meantime, insurers should be cautious of demands with intricate conditions to avoid unintentionally rejecting them. Read more>>> PIERCE v. BANKS (2023) | FindLaw 

 

Court Dismisses Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer in UIM Case, Citing Lack of Supporting Allegations

 

In Moody v. State Farm Ins. Co., the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss a claim for statutory bad faith. The court found that the allegations regarding timing, adequate investigation, and settlement offers did not establish that the insurer had acted in bad faith with regard to the insured’s underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. The court emphasized that the insured filed suit only five months after requesting to open the UIM claim, and the alleged delay was not solely attributable to the insurer. Additionally, the court determined that a lowball offer and the insurer’s right to investigate did not constitute bad faith. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances did not support the bad faith claim and further amendment would be futile. Read more>>> MOODY v. STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., 2:23-cv-01182 – CourtListener.com 

 

Understanding State Law Variations in Indemnification Provisions: Key Considerations for Companies

 

Indemnification provisions are critical for allocating risk in commercial contracts, but companies must be aware of state law variations when conducting business across state lines. Different states have different presumptions regarding the scope of indemnity, with some assuming it applies only to third-party claims unless stated otherwise, while others have the opposite presumption. States also differ in their treatment of indemnification for negligence, with some allowing transfers of liability and others prohibiting it in certain contexts. Additionally, the coverage of fees and costs related to enforcing indemnity can vary. To ensure clarity and effectiveness, companies should draft clear and specific indemnification provisions that reference the governing state law. Understanding these variations is crucial for companies to properly allocate risk and avoid ambiguity in their contracts. Read more>>> The importance of drafting clear contractual indemnity provisions | The Policyholder Perspective 

 

 Nationwide General Insurance Files Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Denying Coverage for Insured Accused of Assisting in Woman’s Abduction

 

 Nationwide General Insurance Company has filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief, asserting that it has no obligation to provide coverage for Teddy D. Belcher Jr., who has been accused of aiding in the abduction of a woman identified as “S.R.” The insurer argues that neither Belcher’s homeowner policy nor his auto policy cover the allegations made against him. The complaint states that S.R. filed a separate negligence complaint, claiming that she was drugged and abducted by West Virginia State Trooper Michael Miller, with Belcher alleged to have obstructed her from view and assisted in her abduction. Nationwide’s complaint contends that Belcher’s policies do not afford him liability coverage or medical payments coverage for these allegations. S.R.’s complaint includes counts for negligence, violations of the West Virginia Human Trafficking Statute, and tort of outrage against Belcher. Read More>>> pm-50256644_complaint.pdf – Google Drive