Insurance Coverage Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Rivkin Radler Law Firm : Long Island, New York

If you have an "occurrence" issue or any other issue where the policy coverage is narrower than common coverage language, read the recent decision from the Supreme Court of Montana. Blair v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2007 MT 208, 339 Mont. 8, 167 P.3d 888 (Aug. 21, 2007). While many policies focus on whether the insured intended the injury, Blair's policy focused on whether the insured intended the act. Nevertheless, Blair argued that even though he intended the act, coverage should be provided because he did not intend the injury. That is, Blair argued as if he had the standard policy. The Supreme Court of Montana didn't buy it. The court distinguished policies focusing on the injury, recognized that Blair's policy focused on the act, and denied Blair's claim for coverage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Minneapolis bridge catastrophe is a horrible tragedy.  This terrible incident suggests, however,  insurance implications that we cannot ignore.  Reports are now being received that the bridge had been labeled "structurally deficient." The bridge had rated only a 50 out of 120 on a scale measuring structural stability.  Insurance is generally limited to damages and injuries that are "unexpected."  Policyholder advocates will argue that "structurally deficient" and 50 out of 120 are terms of art that are less ominous than the plain meaning suggests.  But, is the collapse of a "structurally deficient" bridge "unexpected"?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I can't help it: I love insurance cases with weird facts. So, I enjoyed reading a case addressing whether insurance covers claims for “alienation of affections.” Pins v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 476 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2007).  In fact, I wrote about this case in my October 2007 Best’s Review column.  I don’t know what I found more amazing: the notion that insurance would cover an affair (the court rejected the notion) or the fact that people still bring alienation of affection suits in response to affairs. In any event, the case is a must-read for collectors of odd insurance cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This morning's N.Y. Times includes an interesting story concerning a terrible pollution problem allegedly caused by Ford. Can Ford Clean Up After Itself? (Sunday Business p. 1, 7/29/07).
The article describes a serious pollution problem in New Jersey that is allegedly causing health problems for nearby residents. The article focuses on the cleanup, but the next issue will surely be insurance. Ford will seek to push the costs onto its carriers. It will be interesting to explore Ford's intentions and expectations relating to its dumping. Significant coverage defenses may exist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles confirmed that it will pay $660 million to settle sexual abuse claims by 508 people.  It will be interesting to see additional information concerning the insurance aspect of this settlement.  The report in today's New York Times (7/16/07) indicates that the church will pay $250 million, and the remaining $410 million will be paid by Catholic religious orders and insurers.  I wonder exactly how much the insurers are paying and the extent to which insurance coverage defenses (e.g., no "occurrence" and intentional conduct exclusion) discounted the coverage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks