Allocation
Wooddale Builders vs. Maryland Casualty Co.
(Minnestoa Court of Appeals, May 3, 2005)
-Ruling: Appropriate end date for time-on-the-risk allocation is date of remediation.House builder brought action against commercial general liability insurer for declaratory judgment on coverage for mold in stucco houses. Insurer filed third-party action for contribution or indemnity from other insurers. The court held that appropriate ending date when allocating liability among consecutive insurers according to the pro-rata-by-time-on-the-risk method is the date of remediation. Furthermore, in a matter of first impression in Minnesota, the court held that defense costs among consecutively liable insurers should be allocated according to the same method used to apportion indemnity costs.
Auto-No-Fault
Alexis vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
(Minnesota Court of Appeals, May 17, 2005)
-Ruling: No-fault benefits unavailable for accidental death caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. Decedent’s widow brought action against decedent’s no-fault insurer, seeking benefits under the policy. The decedent and his relative died from carbon monoxide poisoning. The carbon monoxide had been emitted from the decedent’s vehicle while it was parked and running in his garage. The deaths were ruled accidental. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the decedent’s widow was not entitled to no-fault benefits because the deaths did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within the meaning of the No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act.
Automobile
Griffith vs. State Farm Mutual
(Michigan, June 14, 2005)
-Ruling: Food expenses not covered. No-fault benefits were not available for purchase of food where the injured party’s recovery did not require special diet. Insured’s ordinary food expenses were part of regular life, and were not increased or altered by the underlying accident. The court also noted that paying such costs would be the functional equivalent of seeking a wage-loss benefit.
J. Am. Family Insurance Group vs. Kiess
(Minnesota, June 16, 2005)
-Ruling: Interest accrues 30 days from actual notice of loss.
Insured brought action against no-fault carrier to recover interest on no-fault award. The carrier argued that it was obligated to pay interest on the insured’s no-fault claim 30 days after it received actual notice of the claim, which occurred when the insured filed a petition for arbitration. Because the carrier had notified the insured that it was discontinuing payment of future claims, the insured argued that case law and public policy dictate that interest begin to accrue 30 days after he received the medical care underlying the claim, approximately 52 months before he filed his arbitration petition. The court held that under the plain language of Minnesota Statute § 65B.54, subd. 1 (2004), interest begins to accrue 30 days after an insurer receives actual notice of an insured’s loss.
Auto-Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist
Estate of Nord vs. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co.
(Ohio, May 18, 2005)
-Ruling: Injury must have been caused by vehicle for UIM coverage to apply. The claimant was injured while riding in an ambulance. The injury was caused when the paramedic dropped a syringe in the claimant’s eye. The court held that just because the injury occurred in a vehicle did not trigger UIM coverage. Rather, the operation or use of the vehicle must have caused the injury.
Sindt vs. United Fire & Casualty Co.
(Iowa Court of Appeals, June 15, 2005)
-Ruling: UIM coverage unavailable for loss of consortium claim. The insured brought an action to recover UIM benefits for loss of consortium after his mother was killed in an auto accident. At the time of the accident, the insured was a resident of Nebraska. As such, Nebraska law applied. The insurer argued that Nebraska law does not require coverage for loss of consortium claims arising from the death of one other than an insured person under the policy. The court agreed and found that the district court properly granted the insurer summary judgment, and correctly denied the insured’s request for partial summary judgment.
GRAY AUTHOR BIO BOX
Goldberg Segalla (www.goldbergsegalla.com) counsels and represents individuals and businesses in specialized areas of civil litigation, contractual and extra-contractual disputes and regulatory matters before state and federal agencies. Kevin T. Merriman can be reached at kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.
Goldberg Segalla (www.goldbergsegalla.com) counsels and represents individuals and businesses in specialized areas of civil litigation, contractual and extra-contractual disputes and regulatory matters before state and federal agencies. Kevin T. Merriman can be reached at kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.