Case Law Watch

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Anglum, et al.
(Colorado, Sept. 12, 2005)
Ruling:
The court held that an USAA auto policy unambiguously permitted the insurer to charge an adjusted premium for a newly acquired vehicle from the date the insured acquired the vehicle. USAA sought a review of a court of appeals’ decision that its policy was ambiguous with respect to when it can charge an adjusted premium for newly acquired vehicles. The appeals court decision was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court’s order dismissing the insureds’ complaint.

Progressive Insurance v. National American Insurance Co.
(Oregon Court of Appeals,. Aug. 31, 2005)
Ruling:
The appeal involved a contribution action between two motor vehicle in-surers. Progressive Insurance settled a personal injury claim against its insured, and thereafter, sought contribution from National American that covered the insured for the same period. The court held in favor of Progressive and noted the driver of the insured’s vehicle was not excluded under the insurer’s policy, and that the vehicle was covered under that policy.

Santa Anita Church v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Co.
(California Court of Appeals, 2nd Disrict., Aug. 31, 2005)
Ruling:
At issue was whether Santa Anita Church instituted an action against Guide One for breach of contract and bad faith. The jury returned a verdict, finding a breach of contract but that GuideOne had not acted in bad faith. The court granted a “partial new trial” on the bad faith count. GuideOne appealed, and the court held that the trial court holding that a new trial limited to the bad faith claim would be prejudicial.

Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Co.
(California, 9th Ciruit Court, Aug. 31, 2005)
Ruling:
The court held that Alta Health did not abuse its discretion in denying a claim for life insurance benefits. Alta Health was the regulator of an employee benefit plan. The insurer denied Abatie’s claim for life insurance benefits for the death of her husband, because a waiver of premium application was not filed within 12 months of the date the decedent/ employee became totally disabled. Alta Health also denied the claim, saying there was insufficient evidence to establish that the decedent was totally and continuously disabled from 1992, when he took a medical leave of absence and his employer classified him as a retiree, until his death in 2000.

West Coast Life Insurance Co. v. Ward
(California Court of Appeals, Aug. 25, 2005)
Ruling:
At issue on this appeal was whether the decedent/insured had made a material misrepresentation in an application for life insurance, and whether West Coast had a right to rescind the policy. The court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and noted that West Coast did not waive its right to disclosure of material information fairly to inquire about other communications.

Holloway v. Republic Indemnity Company of America
(Oregon, Circuit Court of Appeals, Aug. 31, 2005)
Ruling:
The insured had been sued in an underlying action in which the injured plaintiff alleged sexual harassment, constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A stipulated judgment was entered against the insured. Repulic In-demnity denied coverage and concluded, based upon two exclusions in its policy, that it did not have a duty to defend. This court held there was a duty to defend and remanded the case on the failure to indemnify.

Goldberg Segalla (www.goldbergsegalla.com) counsels and represents individuals and businesses. Kevin T. Merriman can be reached at kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.