Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it was not required to defend insured-livery service in underlying action by passenger seeking damages for injuries incurred when livery service driver was escorting passenger to front door of VA hospital. Livery service had agreement with VA hospital to assist passengers to hospital entrance, and “use” of livery service vehicle included more than mere operation of vehicle. Moreover, assisting passenger last few steps from vehicle to destination itself is rationally connected to driver and passenger using livery service to take passenger most of way to destination.

Plaintiff manufacturer filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that insurers had a duty to defend it from claims as to environmental contamination. Court properly granted partial summary judgment for insurers. Plaintiff claimed that insurers had duty to defend it in mediation of  claims as to site designated by EPA address additional releases of hazardous substances. Policies provide duty to defend only when there is a “suit,” and this mediation is neither a “suit” nor a continuation of an existing lawsuit; Plaintiff agreed to mediation of claims in hopes of avoiding a suit. (DELORT and HARRIS, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 8/22/19.) Plaintiff insured presented underinsured motorist (UIM) claims to insurer for damages he sustained in 2 car accidents. His claims were submitted to arbitration, and arbitrators entered awards in his favor. Insurer disputed the application of setoff provisions in his policy, claiming that policy provisions  permitted setoffs equal to the amounts Plaintiff recovered from the underinsured motorists and his policy to be applied against the arbitration awards. Plaintiff's policy adheres to the principles of public policy behind the UIM statute, and it does not permit a "double set-off".(MASON and HYMAN, concurring.)

Plaintiff insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that there was no uninsured motorist coverage (UM) available to Defendant insured. Court properly entered judgment for insurer, as insured's demand for arbitration was untimely. Insured's submitting of police report and letter from another insurer to Plaintiff did not provide Plaintiff with relevant information it needed to investigate insured's claim, and thus was not a sufficient proof of loss sufficient to toll the limitations period for demanding arbitration. (CONNORS, concurring; and HARRIS, dissenting.)

Plaintiff insurer filed suit, seeking declaratory judgment that it did not owe Defendant coverage under the policy for property damage to airplane that crashed. Defendant insured failed to comply with policy's pilot warranty endorsement. Although co-pilot was approved by Defendant's chief pilot, he failed to go to simulator school annually, which was required by endorsement, and he did not complete company approved training prior to the flight. The fact that the policy gives insurer some discretion does not render the clause illusory.(McBRIDE and REYES, concurring.)