Case Law Watch

Actions and Proceedings
Continental Insurance Co. v. The Pamona Redevelopment Agency
(California Court of Appeals, May 15, 2006, Unpublished)

Ruling: On this appeal, the excess insurer, Continental, sought to intervene in an action pending between the city of Pomona and the Redevelopment Agency. The basis for intervention was the excess insurer’s contention that that action was not a bona fide adversarial proceeding, but rather a collusive suit designed for the purpose of the city that did not have any first-party insurance for cleanup costs, to pay a third-party liability claim to itself in the guise of the Agency. The court denied intervention.

Auto–Liability
Andres v. American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin
(Oregon Court of Appeals, May 3, 2006)

Ruling: The plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving a pickup truck that his employer had rented for use at work. The plaintiff sought coverage under her auto policy that provided coverage for injury and damage “due to the use of a car or utility trailer.” Also, the policy defined car to include a pickup truck “not used in any business or occupation.” The defendant/insurer denied coverage, taking the position that plaintiff’s damages were not due to his use of a “car or utility trailer.” The court affirmed the award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant/insurer.

Gallina v. Explorer Insurance Co.(California Court of Appeals, Third District, May 19, 1006, Unpublished)

Ruling: At issue on this appeal was whether the operator of a vehicle, which was owned by the operator’s father, was explicitly excluded from the policy covering the father’s vehicle. The court held that the “Named Driver Exclusion” was in effect at the time of the accident and, therefore, the operator was excluded. Specifically, the court noted that the operator did not meet one of the three requirements to qualify as an insured (i.e., maintain a “separate auto liability policy.”)

Auto–Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Camacho v. Automobile Club of Southern California
(California Court of Appeals, Second District, May 3, 2006)

Ruling: In this class action instituted on behalf of uninsured motorists against a collection agency and various insurers, the court held that the uninsured motorist failed to show that the collection agency’s practices were “unfair” under the unfair practices statute. (Business and Professional Code §17200). The remedy, if any, was under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, §1788, et seq.)

Wallack v. Allstate Insurance Co.
(Oregon Court of Appeals, May 17, 2006)

Ruling: The trial court granted plaintiff/ insured summary judgment, holding that the insurer breached the PIP and UM provisions of the insurance contract. The insurer contended that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the insured was so negligent as to negate the trial court’s conclusion that he would have been legally entitled to recover from the “phantom driver.” The court rejected the insurer’s arguments and decided in favor of the insured.

Bad Faith
Century Surety Co. v. Polisso
(California Court of Appeals, Third District, May 22, 2006)

Ruling: The court found that the insured had a duty to defend the insured “if it becomes aware of, or if the third-party lawsuit pleads, facts giving rise to the potential coverage under the insuring agreement.” Further, in reviewing the bad faith and punitive damages award, the court held that they were supported by the facts and not constitutionally excessive. In reaching its decision, the court considered the BMW and Campbell cases among others.

Miscellaneous
Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. The Law Offices of Steven Zelig
(California Court of Appeals, Second District, May 2, 2006, Unpublished)

Ruling: Scottsdale had filed a complaint for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy against the defendants to recoup attorneys’ fees and costs expended in prior lawsuits, and also sought punitive damages. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternatively to dismiss. The defendants also filed a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute contending that the insurer sued in retaliation for prior representation. The court denied the defendants motion holding that Scottsdale met its burden of proof.

Goldberg Segalla LLP is a best practices law firm with offices in Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, White Plains and New York. Kevin T. Merriman, a partner with the firm, compiled this information. Copyright 2006 Goldberg Segalla LLP, all rights reserved.

Topics Lawsuits California Carriers Auto