Case Law Watch

May 8, 2006

Tenant’s PolicyMinges Creek, LLC v. Royal Insurance Company of America
(6th Cir. [Mich.] April 6, 2006)

Ruling: Mall owner was not entitled to additional insured status on mall tenant’s policy for accident occurring in common area. The lease was only for the interior of store, and only required insurance for “leased premises.” The court held that the lease and policy had to be read together, and that the owner would only be additional insured for accidents occurring inside the store. As the accident occurred in the common area, the mall owner was not an additional insured.

Uninsured–AutoTravelers Indemnity Co. v. Machado
(N.Y. App., 2d Dept., April 11, 2006)

Highlands Ins. Co. v. Baez, 18 AD3d 238 to the extent it could be read to require the insurer of the allegedly uninsured vehicle was required to attempt to locate the owner of the offending vehicle. The court held it was “properly” the burden of the carrier for the claimant seeking coverage, not the disclaiming carrier, for evidence of coverage.

Day Care CoverageFarmer v. Allstate Insurance Company
(9th Cir. CA, Mar. 14, 2006) (Unpublished)

Ruling: Homeowner’s policy day care en-dorsement provides no coverage. Allstate’s insureds were sued for an alleged molestation that occurred at their licensed day care center. The court held that the Allstate Deluxe Homeowners Policy, including its Home Day Care Endorsement, did not cover the injuries sustained by the claimant. The court noted that the policy excludes coverage for injuries resulting from or arising out of the alleged molestation, even if the actor’s negligence contributed to the injuries.

Recreational VehiclesShelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Davis v. Eifler
(Iowa App. April 12, 2006)

Ruling: Homeowners policy not implicated where ATV accident occurred off covered premises. Eifler sustained injuries while riding the Davis’s ATV near, but not on the premises of the Davis’s vacation home. The Davis’s homeowner’s policy excluded coverage from personal injury arising out of the use of recreational vehicles owned by the insured which are away from premises “owned by, rented to, or controlled by, the insured.” The “insured premises” included “grounds used by [the insured] in connection with [the insured’s] residence premises.” Notwith-standing that the area where the ATV came to rest after the accident was owned by the Homeowners’ Association of which the insured were members, there was no evidence that the insureds had any ownership interest in that property. The court found that regular use of the property by the insureds was insufficient to demonstrate the area was used in connection with the residence premises. It reasoned the apparent purpose of the exclusion was to confine the insurer’s risk to a specific geographic area and that accepting the insured’s prompting to construe broadly the phrase “in connection with” would increase the insurance company’s risk beyond the policy’s intended scope and defeat the obvious purpose of the exclusion.

This recurring feature examining insurance coverage decisions was edited by insurance attorney Kevin T. Merri-man,

From This Issue

Insurance Journal West May 8, 2006
May 8, 2006
Insurance Journal West Magazine

Product Liability Stretches Across the World

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


More News
More News Features