Mecca v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
(Montana Court, Oct. 25, 2005)
(Unpublished)
Ruling: The lower court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment denying the insured’s claim for underinsured coverage. The court affirmed and held that an application of underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage was dependent on available coverage of the vehicle at issue, not the vehicle’s driver. The court noted that UIM coverage was not available because an underinsured driver who was operating a rental truck that was not underinsured caused the accident. The policy language provided that the insurer would pay insureds damages from the owner or operator of the underinsured vehicle.
Deane v. Lubow
(California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, Oct. 26, 2005) (Unpublished)
Ruling: The insured in this case appealed the dismissal of its second amended complaint that contained a cause of action for civil conspiracy. The insured contended that the insurer engaged physicians to lower, obstruct, delay and deny the payment of underinsured motorist and medical benefits. The court reversed, holding that the cause of action adequately alleged a conspiracy to defraud.
Topics Auto
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
P/C Insurer Rankings Down Overall on Higher Costs, Changing Customer Expectations 
AIG to Pay Neal $2.7 Million to Cover Previous Firm’s Bonus 
Businessman, Former Federal Insurance Co. Attorney Hit With $50M Florida Verdict 
Insurance Customers Skeptical About AI Processes and Benefits From This Issue
