In a recent ruling, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has ordered Evanston Insurance Company (EIC) to honor its insurance obligations and pay insurance coverage in a lawsuit involving Prime Time Healthcare LLC. The lawsuit stemmed from a car accident in which Leslie File, an employee of Prime Time, struck a van carrying nine passengers. The van occupants, including Tavita Farani, Tyler Bunting, and Michael Locke, claimed injuries and filed a lawsuit. The jury found File liable for the accident, and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, an insurer for Prime Time, paid up to the limits of its policy. However, EIC refused to pay under its policy, leading to the legal dispute. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and EIC appealed the decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed the district court’s ruling, stating that EIC must fulfill its insurance obligations. Read more>>>22-60450.0.pdf (uscourts.gov) 

 

 

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that Liberty Mutual Corporation had no duty to defend an accused polluter in a South Carolina federal court case. However, the court conditionally reinstated Liberty Mutual’s duty to indemnify. The case involved Copart of Connecticut Inc., which was sued by neighboring property owners over pollution-related claims. Liberty Mutual obtained summary judgment in a Texas trial court, stating that it had no duty to defend or indemnify due to pollution exclusions in the policies. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision on the duty to defend but reversed and remanded on the duty to indemnify, stating that the ruling was premature. The court stated that if evidence shows that non-pollutants caused the plaintiffs’ damage, Liberty Mutual may be obligated to indemnify Copart. Read more>>> Duty to defend versus indemnify is distinct, says U.S. Fifth Circuit | PropertyCasualty360 

 

 

Mid-Century Insurance Co. has filed a liability lawsuit against Owners Insurance Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit is connected to their shared insured, Bachmann & Associates Counseling Care, which has been accused of violating state laws on discrimination. Mid-Century is seeking a declaratory judgment that Owners Insurance has a duty to defend Bachmann & Associates under their policy, but Owners Insurance has refused and denied any obligation to indemnify. The underlying lawsuit, Jane Doe 1 v. Olseth, alleges that Bachmann & Associates is liable for injuries related to statutes governing abortion in Minnesota. Owners Insurance initially refused to represent Bachmann & Associates, leading Mid-Century to defend them. Mid-Century claims that Owners Insurance should contribute to the costs incurred in the defense. The case is ongoing, and counsel for the defendant has not yet appeared.

Read more>>> Insurers battle over duty to defend clinic owned by representative’s husband | PropertyCasualty360 

 

 

A recent case involving $91.5 million in defense costs underscores the significant value of a duty to defend under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. The case, Willowbrook Ethylene Oxide Litigation, involved plaintiffs suing defendants for bodily and personal injuries resulting from exposure to ethylene oxide. The insurer initially refused to defend and indemnify the policyholders, citing policy exclusions. However, the court rejected the insurer’s arguments, ruling in favor of the policyholders. The court emphasized that the duty to defend is broad and leans towards interpreting policies in favor of the policyholder. This case serves as a valuable lesson for corporate executives, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive duty to defend in insurance policies and the need for thorough coverage reviews by legal experts. Read more>>>How a $1 Million CGL Insurance Policy Unleashed a $91.5 Million Win – Lexology