Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that policy issued by plaintiff to insured-truck driver's wife did not provide coverage in accident involving truck driver and third-party. Record showed that: (1) accident occurred when truck driver was making delivery on behalf of employer; (2) employer also had insurance covering truck driver; and (3) plaintiff's policy had provision excluding coverage where, as here, truck driver's vehicle was essentially leased to employer in exchange for compensation. Fact that truck driver's wife (as owner of vehicle) signed lease agreement with employer did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff seeking to collect on bond issued by defendant that insured plaintiff against financial loss resulting from misconduct by plaintiff's employee. Instant misconduct arose out of scheme in which employee received kickbacks for causing plaintiff to fund non-conforming mortgages that plaintiff eventually sold to third-parties. Bond, though, required that plaintiff establish direct-loss, which plaintiff failed to establish where instant losses arose out of plaintiff's obligation to repurchase mortgages from third-parties. Moreover, instant bond specifically barred coverage for losses resulting from loan-repurchase obligations.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in ERISA action by plaintiff-assignee of insured's estate alleging that defendant wrongfully gave insurance proceeds under group policy to insured's children instead of insured's estate (under circumstances where beneficiary of policy had died simulataneously with insured), even though plaintiff had advised defendant of said assignment prior to defendant's award of insurance proceeds to children. Defendant's actions were not arbitrary where policy contained facility-of-payment clause that permitted defendant discretion to give proceeds of policy to insured's children, as well as insured's estate when named beneficiary was dead at time of insured's death. Moreover, administrator of estate did not have authority to assign any proceeds of policy prior to defendant's identification of estate as recipient under facility-of-payment clause. Fact that defendant had been aware of administrator's assignment was irrelevant.