Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-insureds’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-insurance company’s action seeking declaration that homeowner’s policy it issued did not cover incident in which house-guest of insureds was injured when walking insureds’ dog. While policy contained “intra-insured” exclusion for injuries sustained by “insured,” which covered persons legally responsible for animal owned by named insureds, house-guest was not “legally responsible” for instant dog under Indiana law as either owner or “keeper” of dog, since record showed that: (1) house-guest never had management, control or care of dog as owner of owner would normally have; and (2) house-guest was not responsible for giving dog any food, water, affection or other care. As such, house-guest was not “insured,” and thus his injuries were potentially covered under policy.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant wrongfully denied plaintiff’s request for total-disability benefits arising out of condition of plaintiff’s hand that prevented him from working as pit broker at Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Defendant based its denial of plaintiff’s claim for full benefits on its interpretation of phrase “requires and receives regular care by Physician” as establishing that plaintiff’s “total disability” condition occurred only as of date that plaintiff first sought treatment for his disabled condition. Said interpretation was improper, since there was no temporal element in relevant policy language. As such, trial was required because onset of plaintiff’s could have occurred prior to date plaintiff sought treatment for his hand condition at time when plaintiff would have been eligible for full disability benefits.

Record failed to support Dist. Ct.’s finding in favor of plaintiff-insured in action under ERISA alleging that defendant-insurance company wrongfully denied plaintiff long-term disability benefits based on plaintiff’s back condition. Instant policy required showing that plaintiff was “regular” employee at least 60% of employee’s full-time schedule, and new trial was required, where record did not support Dist. Ct.’s finding that plaintiff’s coverage for said disability benefits extended beyond last day she performed work as attorney and eventually went on extended leave based on her back condition. Moreover, Dist. Ct. failed to pin down exact date of onset of plaintiff’s disability as defined under policy, when plaintiff could no longer practice law. As such, there was potential for finding that plaintiff was disabled prior to her application date, and thus was ineligible for coverage under policy terms.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it owed defendant-insured no duty to defend underlying lawsuit alleging that defendant-pharmaceutical distributor negligently sold large quantities of highly addictive drugs to pharmacies that in turn provided said drugs to its customers, which caused said customers to become addicted to said drugs and caused State of West Virginia to expend money treating said addictions. Plaintiff's policy provided coverage when defendant became legally obligated to pay others “because of bodily injury,” and underlying action fit within said language of policy. Fact that West Virginia sought its own damages, as opposed to damages on behalf of addicted customers, did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-title company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiffs-insureds seeking $125,500 from defendant, which had issued title insurance policy to plaintiffs on property that had been sold to them by individual who did not own said property, where plaintiffs in essence sought $37,500 that defendant had received from seller of said property, as well as $88,000, which represented difference between appraised price for said property and what defendant had paid to plaintiffs’ lender, which in turn released plaintiffs from obligation to pay on mortgage note. Language in policy did not obligate defendant to pay plaintiffs market value for property that had reverted back to true owner, and plaintiffs did not show that they had incurred actual monetary loss arising out of their purchase of property where plaintiffs had no equity interest in property and its mortgage note had been extinguished.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendant in plaintiff-insurance company’s action seeking declaration that it did not cover defendant in underlying action filed by individuals who were employees of both defendant and separate company, where record showed said employees brought sexual harassment claim against both defendant and separate company, and where plaintiff had issued relevant policy to separate company. Employees alleged in underlying lawsuit that defendant and separate company were in joint venture, and language in plaintiff’s policy provided coverage for either partnership or joint venture involving separate company. Moreover, policy provided coverage for damages arising out of employment practices that included sexual harassment. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that allegations in underlying lawsuit concerned sexual assaults that were outside coverage provided by policy. Fact that contract between defendant and separate company indicated that they were not in joint partnership did not require different result.