Publications
A commercial and general liability policy’s microorganism exclusion applied because the fluids that had escaped from the decedent’s body and damaged the insured’s property contained bacteria, which constituted a microorganism.
In this property damage action, the insured owned a four-story apartment building in which a tenant died. Unfortunately, his body was not immediately discovered. As a result, the body decomposed and severely damaged the unit.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
The insured failed to show insurance bad faith where the insurer had relied upon a genuine and considered estimate of actual cash value by an expert.
This action arose from the insurer’s alleged mishandling of the insured’s property damage claim, following a fire that had destroyed the insured’s property.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
New York does not recognize a separate cause of action for the implied covenant of good faith.
This action arose from a claim submitted under a homeowners’ insurance policy that the insured held with Hartford Insurance Company.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
There is no separate cause of action for bad faith clams handling and the insured’s claim for attorney’s fees was not permitted by the policy.
Orient Overseas argued that Westport had acted in bad faith in resolving its insurance claim with respect to a commercial property that was damaged in Superstorm Sandy.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
New Jersey law applied and that the insurer must provide indemnification coverage with respect to a medical malpractice claim.
In this insurance coverage action, the court conducted a choice of law analysis and concluded that New Jersey Law applied to the medical malpractice policy issued to a Rhode Island doctor.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
The court held that the policy’s assault, battery or physical altercation exclusion applied and that there was no coverage for appellants’ claims against the insured because the insured’s bodyguard had allegedly assaulted the appellant.
The claims against the insured arose out of the assault and battery allegedly committed by the insured’s security guard.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court, where the insurer had failed to establish that the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold had been met.
Following a motor vehicle accident, the insured sought coverage under her Safeco policy for stacked coverage. Safeco paid the unstacked limits, and the plaintiff filed suit, requesting stacked coverage and claiming insurance bad faith.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
The court held that the insurer was not required to pay for the entire roof replacement, per the terms of the policy, even though the insured’s homeowners’ association had forced the insured to replace the entire roof.
In this property damage case, the roof of the insured’s home was damaged in a storm. The homeowners’ association forced them to replace the entire roof, as required by the association’s design standards.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
Summary judgment in favor of the insurer was reversed and remanded because the insurer had failed to present evidence establishing that it had delivered a copy of the policy to the plaintiff.
The appellate court held that the lower court had erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the insurance company since the company never demonstrated that it had delivered a copy of the plaintiff’s policy to him.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014
The state cannot be sued under New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
The Appellate Division, per curium, held as a matter of law that the state of New Jersey cannot be sued under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act since the state is not a person capable of being sued under the Act.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014