Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiff's policy limited coverage to $1 million even though defendant alleged that three trucks, which were all covered under single policy issued by plaintiff, played role in accident that caused defendant's injuries. Language of policy's Combined Limited Liability provision capped plaintiff's total coverage at $1 million regardless of how many vehicles were involved in accident, and Ct. rejected defendant's claim that each vehicle was subject to separate $1 million limit or that accident constituted three separate occurrences. Ct. also rejected defendant's claim that federal Motor Carriers Act required that three trucks involved in accident had combined coverage of $2.25 million where defendant had released motor carrier from liability beyond coverage limits of its insurance policy.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's request for declaratory relief in action alleging that plaintiff did not have duty to defend defendant-insured in series of underlying lawsuits involving presence of Bisphenol-A (BPA) in certain products sold by defendant, as well as defendant's alleged failure to warn consumers of health risks associated with BPA. Underlying lawsuits alleged only economic damages arising out of consumers' purchase of unusable products, and instant policies provided coverage only if lawsuits alleged actual bodily injuries and asserted damages arising out of said injuries.

In action seeking declaration that defendant-insurance company had duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in underlying action alleging that plaintiff engaged in trademark infringement, false advertising and deceptive trade practices arising out of plaintiff's marketing of "Stay-On" Christmas lights, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant had duty to defend plaintiff since: (1) allegations of underlying lawsuit potentially gave rise to claim of unauthorized use of slogan, which was covered under relevant policy; and (2) exclusions in policy did not apply. As to duty to indemnify, remand was required to permit plaintiff opportunity to show that primary focus of claims that had been settled in underlying lawsuit concerned covered loss.

Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in staying plaintiff-insurance company's action seeking declaration that it owed no duty to defend over 300 Indiana medical malpractice actions when insured allegedly failed to cooperate with plaintiff by leaving country while said malpractice actions were pending before Indiana medical review panels. Ct. rejected Dist. Ct.'s finding that it would be impossible for plaintiff to show actual prejudice created by insured's absence without interfering with state court actions, and further held that value of obtaining single ruling about effect of insured's behavior on his contractual relationship with plaintiff was sufficiently great such that Dist. Ct.'s issuance of stay was abuse of discretion.