Insurance Law

Declaratory judgment action as to insurance coverage available to Defendant, for itself and as successor-in-interest to Ammco, for personal injury claims arising out ot the underlying claimants' exposure to asbestos through the use of automobile brake equipment manufactured by Ammco. Premises language of occurrence definitions of 2 policies requires that claims arising out of substantially the same conditions existing at the same location be bundled into a single occurrence. Thus, for each location at which multiple claims arose from substantially the same conditions, there will be a separate occurrence. As multiple suits arose from the use of Ammco products at multiple premises and all allege injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos caused by the use of Ammco products, suits arising at each location constitute a separate occurrence per the premises language. (MASON and HYMAN, concurring.)

Employee of subcontractor was injured on the job. Defendant insurer of subcontractor named general contractor and company hiring it to do construction project at its facility as additional insureds. Insurer has a duty to defend general contractor in the underlying lawsuit for injuries, because there is the potential that subcontractor's acts or omissions caused employee's injuries. The silence in underlying complaint as to subcontractor's possible negligence is the possible result of tort immunity for employers, and is not a basis for insurer to refuse to defend general contractor. (TURNER and CAVANAGH, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 4/11/19.) Insurer owed its CGL insured, a carpentry subcontractor, a duty to defend in the underlying construction litigation. Claims against insured were within, or potentially within, insurer's policy coverage, entitling the subcontractor to a defense from insurer. When an underlying complaint alleges that a subcontractor's negligence caused something to occur to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor's scope of work, this alleges an occurrence under this CGL policy language, notwithstanding that it would not be an occurrence from a general contractor or developer's perspective. Subcontractor's other CGL insurer is thus entitled to equitable contribution from it for undertaking the subcontractor's defense. Remanded to allow other insurer to prove up the amount of contribution to which it is entitled.(PIERCE and WALKER, concurring.)

Court dismissed 2 counts of Plaintiff's amended complaint for declaratory judgment to construe the rights of the parties as to Plaintiff's underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under her auto insurance policy. Policy required Plaintiff to make a written demand for arbitration within 2 years of the collision to become entitled to payment of UIM benefits under the policy.  This requirement applies when the insurer and insured have not reached agreement on amount of damages regardless of whether the other driver is uninsured or underinsured.Letter from Plaintiff's counsel to insurer, to secure his payment for legal services, is not a "claim" for UIM benefits, as it makes not reference to whether Plaintiff was making a claim for UIM benefits. Section 143.1 of Insurance Code tolls policy's limitations provision only once a proof of loss is filed. (McDADE, concurring; O'BRIEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Declaratory judgment action filed by insurer of owner of vehicle driven by permissive user in multi-vehicle collision. Insurer sought declaration that it did not owe obligation to defend or indemnify driver's estate under a $1 million umbrella policy issued to vehicle owner that was effective at time of accident. Driver was not an insured under the umbrella policy, and thus insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify driver's estate.  Vehicle owner's use of vehicle, as a passenger, is not sufficient to trigger coverage for driver.(HUTCHINSON and SPENCE, concurring.)

Under Insurance Claims Fraud Protection Act, the State need not have suffered monetary damages to confer standing on a relator. In the qui tam context, a whistleblower employee who has personal, nonpublic information of possible wrongdoing is an "interested person" under the Act and need not have a personal injury to have standing. Separation agreement does not prevent relator from pursuing qui tam action, as a qui tam claim alleging insurance fraud is not a claim arising out of or in connection with employment. (MASON and PUCINSKI, concurring.)