Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

By on March 14, 2018
Leave a comment

As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018)

The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney.

In ruling on the insured’s motion to compel, the Court concluded that the insurers failed to satisfy their burden of showing that communications with their attorney up to the date of the declination letter were protected, even though the parties were in litigation, because the Court was convinced that their attorney acted as an investigator and evaluator of the claim while the litigation was proceeding. The Court stated that “nothing in Cedell limits the discoverability presumption to pre-litigation evidence…” Furthermore, the insurers failed to show that their communications with their attorney took place because of litigation as opposed to being created in the normal scope of their insurance business. The Court ordered production of all attorney/client communication and work product up to the date the declination letter was sent, ruling that “documents containing [the insurers’ attorney’s] mental impressions regarding the insurers’ quasi-fiduciary duties to the insured, including his liability assessments and coverage advice, are subject to production.”

The Court did not do an in camera review of the documents at issue, as requested by the insurers and authorized by Cedell, writing that the insurers had failed to meet their threshold burden to justify such a review. In this regard, the Court was critical of the insurers’ privilege logs and conclusory explanations in the briefing of why the documents should be protected. “The Court finds that it is insufficient for the parties to rely on a request for in camera review to avoid their responsibility to explain why such documents should be withheld.”

Additionally, one of the insurers moved that if it had to produce such information, the plaintiff should be compelled to produce the same. The Court denied that motion, noting that an insured does not owe a quasi-fiduciary duty to its insurer and that Cedell is not a two-way street.

This ruling should serve as an important reminder to insurers and their counsel about the dangers of discovery in Washington following Cedell. For insurers to chip away at the scope of Cedell, they must take their discovery obligations seriously and lodge specific, well-supported objections in order to protect certain categories of privileged information. Insurers must not only be aware of Cedell, but also be aware that they will often have the burden of convincing the Court that an attorney/client communication or work product document should be protected from discovery. Specifically, insurers should be prepared to argue that the privileged information was not related to the evaluation of the claim, but rather for the specific purpose of rendering legal advice.

What is certainly clear is that an insurer cannot make a blanket assertion that documents are protected and expect the Court to review the documents in camera, which appears to have happened in this case. An insurer should instead be prepared to address each document individually and explain why it is not related to the evaluation of the insured’s claim. Finally, when a claim has been pending and litigation is commenced, the file should always be split so that a new litigation file is created and claim evaluation materials are kept separate from litigation materials.

Filed under Unfair Insurance Practices

Insurance Coverage for Wrongful Incarceration Claims in Ohio

By on March 2, 2018
Leave a comment

Over the past 18 months, we have examined numerous states’ approaches to insurance coverage for underlying claims of wrongful incarceration and malicious prosecution. See here, here, here and here.

Last summer, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, interpreting Ohio law, weighed in on this issue. Selective Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16327 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in finding an excess insurer liable for a settlement of an underlying malicious prosecution claim arising out of a claimant’s wrongful conviction. The court concluded that coverage was not triggered because the claim did not occur until several months after the policy period expired, when police withheld new exculpatory evidence from the wrongfully convicted claimant and there was no longer probable cause for the claimant’s arrest and prosecution.

In Selective, “Insurer A” issued an excess policy to the City of Barberton (“City”) from June 29, 1997 to June 29, 1998, and “Insurer B” issued an excess policy to the City from June 29, 1998 to June 29, 1999. The underlying claimant, who was exonerated of rape and murder based on DNA evidence after spending several years in jail, sued the City and its police officers, alleging violations of state law and his federal constitutional rights. All claims against the City were dismissed. The surviving claims against the individual officers included a § 1983 claim for a violation of due process based on the officers’ failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and state law claims of malicious prosecution and loss of consortium. Specifically, the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, i.e., the Brady violation, involved an inter-departmental memorandum that a police officer drafted identifying a suspect in two other aggravated robberies as the likely suspect in the claimant’s rape and murder case. The civil case settled for $5.25 million, to which Insurer B contributed $3.25 million. Insurer A denied coverage, claiming that the malicious prosecution of the claimant did not “occur” during its policy period.

As part of the settlement, Insurer B took an assignment of rights from the insured and filed suit against Insurer A for a declaration of coverage under Insurer A’s policy. Insurer B argued on summary judgment that the malicious prosecution of the claimant “occurred” when the charges were filed against the claimant on June 11, 1998. As a result, coverage was triggered under Insurer A’s policy, whose policy period ended on June 29, 1998. Insurer A also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the tort of malicious prosecution occurred at the time of the Brady violation, which occurred in January 1999, six months after its policy expired.

The district court disagreed with Insurer A, stating that although the January 1999 concealment of exculpatory evidence was enough on its own for the claimant’s malicious prosecution claim, there was also evidence of wrongdoing by the police officers during the earlier policy period, such as the dismissal of alibi witnesses and a DNA mismatch. Therefore, the claimant may have had a viable malicious prosecution claim even prior to the alleged Brady violation, during the first policy period. The district court then relied on what it called the “majority rule” from other jurisdictions as to trigger of coverage for malicious prosecution claims, holding that coverage for such claims is triggered at the time that the underlying charges are filed. Because the claimant was first arrested during the first policy period, the court ruled that Insurer A owed coverage and had to reimburse Insurer B.

On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Insurer A again argued that it was not liable for the excess liability claim because no tort occurred during the policy. The Sixth Circuit agreed, concluding that the district court erred in finding Insurer A liable for the settlement. According to the court, because there was probable cause to prosecute and detain the claimant until exculpatory evidence came into existence, the officers’ actions before the exculpatory evidence came into existence could not have caused a covered loss under the RLI policy. The court explained that under Ohio law, malicious prosecution requires the instituting or continuing of prosecution without probable cause. In Ohio, a claimant can recover for a prosecution that was not malicious at its inception, but became malicious later, when it continued without probable cause. The key issue is whether there was probable cause and when such probable cause disappeared. The court determined that in the underlying matter, the City and police officers had probable cause until the alleged Brady violation, such that the malicious prosecution and the deprivation of due process could only have occurred in January 1999, after expiration of Insurer A’s policy period. Therefore, the court concluded that under the plain language of the policy, the police officers’ liability to claimant was not covered under Insurer A’s policy.

The Sixth Circuit distinguished the district court’s “majority rule” based upon the policy language at issue in Insurer A’s policy and because none of the cases relied upon dealt with a situation like claimant’s case, “where the injury—i.e., the filing of charges—occurred before any tortious activity, and therefore could not have been caused by the tortious activity.”

This case demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing the specific elements of a malicious prosecution claim in a particular jurisdiction, as well as the specific policy language at issue. Such careful analysis translates to a predictable conclusion in trigger of coverage for wrongful incarceration cases.

The next installment will review the law in Mississippi. In the meantime, if there are any questions about other jurisdictions or jurisdictions already discussed, please contact us (sries@grsm.com or sallykim@grsm.com) and we can address your questions directly.

Filed under Duty to Defend, Personal and Advertising Injury, Trigger of Coverage

New York’s Highest Court Expands the Phrase “Issued or Delivered” Under N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(a)(2)

By and on December 11, 2017
Leave a comment

In a broad-reaching decision issued late last month, New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, clarified that the phrase “issued or delivered” in New York Insurance Law Section 3420 applies not only to policies issued by New York insurers or to New York insureds, but also to any policies insuring risks in the state.

Following a fatal automobile accident involving his wife, the plaintiff, Michael Carlson – individually, as the administrator of his wife’s estate, and as an assignee of the underlying individual tortfeasor who was a driver for an express shipping company – brought suit against the shipping company and it’s insurers pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) and (b) to collect on multiple insurance policies. Section 3420(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that liability insurance “issued or delivered in this state” must contain certain provisions “that are equally or more favorable to the insured and to judgment creditors so far as such provisions relate to judgment creditors,” including the right of a direct action. Subsection (b) provides, subject to certain limitations that such actions may be brought by personal representatives of a judgment creditor and assignees of judgments obtained against an insured.

Because a plaintiff must establish that the policy sued upon was “issued or delivered” in New York in order to recover under the law, one insurer argued that the statute failed to apply where its policy was issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and then Florida. The court disagreed, stating that its prior decision in Preserver Insurance Company v. Ryba, 10 N.Y.3d 635 (2008) resolved the question in deciding that Section 3420 applies to policies that cover insureds and risks located in New York.

In Preserver the Court concluded that Section 3420(d) required insurers to provide written notice when disclaiming coverage under policies “issued for delivery” in New York. Preserver held that “issued for delivery” referred to the location of the insured risk, and not where the policy document itself was handed over or mailed to the insured. Applying this ruling to all subparts of Section 3420, the New York Court of Appeals thus held in its recent decision that a plaintiff can collect against an insurer if its insured has a “substantial business presence” in New York that “creates risks in New York,” and such an insurer must adhere to the requirements of New York Insurance Law § 3420.

Moreover, Carlson noted that the original legislative intent of Section 3420 was to protect tort victims in New York State. Further amendments to the statute in 2008 expanded the law’s reach. Those amendments also altered the “issued for delivery” language in Section 3420(d) to match the “issued or delivered” language elsewhere in the statute, but there is no indication that the legislature’s minor change to Section 3420(d) was intended to overturn the holding in Preserver. Carlson ruled that interpreting “issued or delivered in this state” narrowly, to apply only to policies issued by an insurer located in New York or by an insurer who mails a policy to a New York address, would undermine the legislative intent of the statute. The Court noted, however, that its interpretation of “issued or delivered” applies only to New York Insurance Law § 3420 and does not apply to other statutes.

In sum, Carlson held that the plaintiff was able to maintain his cause of action under New Yok Insurance Law § 3420 even though the insurer issued the policy in New Jersey and delivered it in Washington and Florida. The insured at issue in Carlson had a substantial business presence and created risks in New York, and therefore the insurer was subject to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The phrase “issued or delivered” in New York will continue to cover both insureds and risks located in the state.

Insurers in all jurisdictions should take note of this decision. As the dissent in Carlson observes, the majority’s ruling as to the meaning of “issued or delivered” in Section 3420(a) “enacts sweeping change across the Insurance Law, generating substantial implications, both known and unknown.” An insurer located outside of New York issuing a policy outside of New York may now be subject to New York law, whether or not a policy is issued in New York or to a New York-based insured.

A link to the decision (Carlson v. American Int’l Group, Inc., 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 3280, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 08163 (N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017)) is available on the New York State website: http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_08163.htm.

Filed under Insurance

Employer’s Liability Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Claims Alleging Intentional Conduct

By on November 29, 2017
Leave a comment

In Seneca Ins. Co. v. Cybernet Entertainment, LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-06554, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the State Insurance Compensation Fund (“State Fund”) has no duty to defend Cybernet Entertainment, LLC (“Cybernet”), a producer of adult films, in a series of personal injury lawsuits filed by three actors alleging that they contracted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) while on set. Cybernet maintained a Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) issued by the State Fund, and the instant dispute arose after Cybernet sought coverage to defend the underlying lawsuits.

After contracting HIV, the actors sought workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Act and under the Policy. The State Fund initially paid partial benefits to two of the three actors, but denied liability for the third actor’s claims. The actors thereafter filed civil actions against Cybernet in California State Court. Cybernet unsuccessfully responded to the lawsuits by demurring on grounds that California workers’ compensation provided an exclusive remedy and barred all tort claims. The State Fund agreed to defend Cybernet in these lawsuits subject to a reservation of rights, but later denied coverage after the California Superior Court overruled the demurrers, citing exclusions in the employer’s liability section of the Policy for claims (1) covered by workers’ compensation and (2) arising from Cybernet’s intentional actions.

By way of background, the Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for workers who suffer injuries in the course and scope of their employment. The Act provides, in part, that workers’ compensation is the “sole and exclusive remedy of the employee…against the employer.” Cal. Lab. Code § 3602(a). California Courts apply a two-pronged test to determine whether the Act preempts tort claims – (1) the injury must arise out of an in the course of the employment; and (2) the act giving rise to the injury must constitute a risk reasonably encompassed within the compensation bargain between employee and employer. See Shoemaker v. Myers, 801 P.2d 1054 (1990). The Court found that claims based upon the allegedly negligent conduct of Cybernet (negligent supervision, negligent hiring, etc.) were preempted under the Act and no duty to defend existed under the Policy, which excludes “any obligation imposed by a workers’ compensation…benefits law.”

The Court was equivocal with respect to the preemptive impact of the Act on claims arising from the allegedly intentional conduct of Cybernet (intentional misrepresentation, fraud, battery, etc.), but found that the language of the Policy obviated any need for a decision under the Act. The Court framed the issue as follows: “to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims arise from Cybernet’s intentional conduct and therefore are not necessarily preempted…the issue becomes whether the State Fund has a duty to defend Cybernet with regard to these claims under the terms of the Policy.” Generally, the Policy provides “liability insurance” for “bodily injury by accident or…disease” and defines “accident” as “an event that is neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” The State Fund argued that Cybernet was not entitled to coverage for any claims arising from intentional actions because the Policy excludes coverage for any “injury intentionally caused or aggravated” by Cybernet. The Court agreed, granting the State Fund’s partial motion for summary judgment, reasoning that no coverage exists and finding that the State Fund has no duty to defend Cybernet from claims arising from its allegedly intentional acts.

Filed under Duty to Defend, Employer’s Liability

No Duty to Defend Drug Makers in Actions Alleging Deceptive Marketing Fueled Opioid Abuse and Addiction

By on November 9, 2017
Leave a comment

On November 6, 2017, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial judge’s decision that The Traveler’s Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) did not owe a duty to defend various pharmaceutical manufacturers in two actions alleging deceptive marketing of opioid products because the alleged injuries in the underlying actions were not caused by an accident. Traveler’s Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Actavis, Inc. (Nov. 6, 2017, No. G053749) 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 976.

The County of Santa Clara and the County of Orange brought a lawsuit (the “California action”) against Actavis, Inc. and other pharmaceutical companies engaged in a “common, sophisticated, and highly deceptive marketing campaign” designed to increase the sale of opioid products by promoting them for treatment of long-term chronic pain, a purpose for which Actavis allegedly knew its opioid products were not suited. The City of Chicago brought a separate lawsuit (the “Chicago action”) against Actavis making essentially the same allegations. Both actions alleged that Actavis’ marketing scheme resulted in a “catastrophic” and nationwide “opioid-induced ‘public health epidemic’” and a resurgence in heroin use. Both actions also alleged that the Counties and City have and will incur increased costs of care and services to their citizens injured by prescription and illegal opioid abuse and addiction.

Travelers declined any duty to defend under commercial general liability policies issued by Travelers and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (collectively “Travelers”), and brought this action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Actavis with respect to both actions.

The St. Paul policies cover “damages for covered bodily injury or property damage” that are “caused by an event.” The policies defined “event” to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Similarly, the Travelers policies cover damages “because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’” caused by an “occurrence.” The term “occurrence” is also defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The St. Paul and Travelers policies also include product exclusions that bar coverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from or arising out of “your product” or “your work.”

Following a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court issued a statement of decision concluding that neither the California nor Chicago action alleged an “accident” as required by the policies to create a duty to defend, and the product exclusions precluded coverage for the claims.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that under California law, a deliberate act is not an accident, even if the resulting injury was unintended, unless the injury was caused by an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening. The Court found that the allegations that Actavis engaged in “a common, sophisticated, and highly deceptive marking campaign” to increase the sale of opioids and corporate profits “can only describe deliberate, intentional acts” for which there could be no insurable “accident” unless “some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening” produced the injuries alleged in the underlying actions.

The Court rejected Actavis’ assertion that the injuries were indirect and unintended results caused by “mere negligence and fortuities” outside of Actavis’ control. “[W]hether [Actavis] intended to cause injury or mistakenly believed its deliberate conduct would not or could not produce injury is irrelevant to determining whether an insurable accident occurred.” Instead, the Court must look to “whether the California Complaint and the Chicago Complaint allege, directly or by inference, it was [Actavis’] deliberate conduct, or an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening, that produced the alleged injuries.” The Court found that it was neither unexpected nor unforeseen that a massive marketing campaign to promote the use of opioids for purposes for which they are not suited would lead to a nation “awash in opioids” or an increase in opioid addiction and overdoses.

The Court also rejected Actavis’ contention that the alleged injuries are not the “normal consequences of the acts alleged” because in order for the opioid products to end up in the hands of abusers, doctors must prescribe the drugs to them. “The test, however, is not whether the consequences are normal; the test is whether an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening produced the consequences.” The Court opined that the role of doctors in prescribing, or even misprescribing, opioids is not an independent or unforeseen happening.

Although the trial court declined to determine whether the California or Chicago actions sought damages because of potentially covered “bodily injury,” the Court found that those actions alleged two categories of “bodily injury”: (1) the use and abuse of opioid painkillers including overdose, addiction, death, and long-term disability; and (2) use and abuse of heroin, the resurgence of which was alleged to have been triggered by use and misuse of opioids. Applying a broad interpretation of “arising out of” as used in the product exclusions, the Court held that both categories of “bodily injury” arise out of Actavis’ opioid products, and are, therefore, barred by the product exclusions in the policies.

The Court also noted a split of authority whether product exclusions apply only to defective products. Although recognizing that the California Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, the Court agreed with the Florida Supreme Court’s reasoning in Taurus Holdings v. U.S. Fidelity (Fla. 2005) 913 So.2d 528, that the term “any product” in the product exclusions applies broadly and does not limit the application of the exclusions to defective products.

Actavis reaffirms California law that a deliberate act resulting in unintended injuries is not an “accident,” unless the injuries were caused by an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening. This decision also reiterates California’s broad interpretation of “arising out of” as used in coverage provisions and exclusions.

Filed under Commercial General Liability, Duty to Defend, Exclusion

Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court

By and on September 25, 2017
Leave a comment

Concluding that the trial court “improperly substituted its judgment” for that of an appraisal panel, the Connecticut Supreme Court invalidated the trial court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award for property loss caused by a tree falling on the insured’s home. See Kellogg v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 326 Conn. 638 (2017). Pending the outcome of this appeal, the insured filed a second suit against her insurer, Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company (“Middlesex”), alleging breach of contract under the homeowner’s “Restorationist” insurance policy, as well as various extra-contractual claims based on the allegedly improper and delayed adjustment of the claim. Notwithstanding the overlapping nature of these claims with those addressed by the arbitration panel, the court denied the insurer’s Motion to Dismiss. Thus, the second lawsuit remains pending despite the Supreme Court’s finding in favor of the insurer.

Both cases revolve around Sally Kellogg’s single-family property located in Norwalk, Connecticut, which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and sits in Norwalk’s Green Historic District. When Kellogg, an interior designer, purchased the property in 2002, she also purchased the Restorationist policy on the home and its contents. The policy provided for unlimited coverage for repairs, including the replacement or restoration cost of the property without deduction for depreciation.

Eight years later, a four-and-a-half ton tree fell on the house during a severe storm, breaking through the roof and causing extensive structural and other property damage. Following the insured’s submission of her claim, a dispute arose regarding the extent of the damage and the cost of repair. Kellogg invoked the appraisal provision of the policy, which provided for unrestricted arbitration in which a panel of three arbitrators—one appointed by each party, and a referee appointed by the two other arbitrators—had the power to decide issues of law and fact not subject to judicial review. The arbitration proceedings resulted in a combined award of $539,901.84 for both replacement/restoration cost and actual cash value loss to personal property contained within the house.

Kellogg, who had argued for restoration costs exceeding $1.5 million, filed an application in the Connecticut Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award, which Middlesex attempted to dismiss as untimely. Though the trial court stated it would only rule on the motion to dismiss, it went on to hold eight days of trial, which ultimately resulted in a finding that the award violated Connecticut General Statutes Section 52–418(a) because: (1) the trial court disagreed with the amount of the award, and (2) the decision of the appraisal panel “evidenced a manifest disregard of the nature and terms and conditions of the Restorationist insurance policy” in violation of the statute. The trial court vacated the arbitration award and denied Middlesex’s Motion to Dismiss.

In overturning this decision on Middlesex’s appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court had improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitration panel and failed to follow the proper standard for evaluating a claim of “manifest disregard of the law.” In doing so, the Court recognized the high level of deference paid to arbitrators in unrestricted arbitration proceedings, such that “a court may vacate an unrestricted arbitration award only under certain limited conditions: (1) the award rules on the constitutionality of a statute, (2) the award violates clear public policy, or (3) the award contravenes one or more of the statutory proscriptions of § 52–418.” (Internal citations removed). Further, the award resulting from unrestricted arbitration is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law.

Under this standard, the Supreme Court held, the trial court overstepped the scope of its judicial review, erroneously substituting its judgment for that of the arbitrators by essentially re-trying all of the facts found by the arbitrators regarding an appropriate award to the insured. To permit a party to object to an award simply because the party dislikes the outcome, the Court said, “would completely destroy the deference our law affords to the arbitration process by allowing the trial court to substitute its own judgment on the merits of the question submitted to arbitration.” In the absence of a claim that “the arbitrators refused to postpone a hearing, refused to hear any of the plaintiff’s evidence, or otherwise committed a procedural error,” the trial court should not have vacated the arbitration award, which was “final and binding.” The trial court further erred by construing policy language, when it should not have engaged in de novo review of the policy language at all. However, disagreeing with the trial court’s construction of policy language, the Supreme Court also declined to vacate the arbitration award on the premise that the panel had “manifestly disregard[ed]” the law in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-418(a)(4) “when it permitted the defendant to withhold depreciation costs until the plaintiff had incurred a debt for the repair or replacement of the property.”

Despite this good news for Middlesex, the company is still saddled with the defense of the second lawsuit. Stemming from the same property loss and claim, this subsequent lawsuit asserts both contractual and extra-contractual claims of bad faith, negligent adjustment of the claim, violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act and Unfair Insurance Practices Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and estoppel. Middlesex moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of ripeness as well as under the “prior pending action” doctrine on the basis that all of the causes of action complained of arose from Middlesex’s allegedly improper conduct in the adjustment and appraisal of the claim.

Nonetheless, the Superior Court sided with Kellogg, categorically denying Middlesex’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, it held that the new action is separate and distinct from the insured’s application to vacate the award, and that her current claims are (or were) not contingent on the outcome of the arbitration appeal. The Court thus allowed the underlying action to proceed, notwithstanding that Kellogg’s claims directly related to the disputed adjustment and appraisal of the loss. For the same reasons, the Superior Court also denied Middlesex’s subsequent motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

Insurers should thus take note: a win in connection with issues of coverage and appraisal does not always avoid other potential liabilities arising from the adjustment of claims.

A link to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision is available on the judicial branch website: http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawjournal/Docs/CTReports/2017/34/cr326_7908.pdf (p. 100).

Filed under Appraisal, First Party Policy, Property Insurance Coverage

Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia

By and on September 12, 2017
Leave a comment

Until recently, Georgia has had no case law addressing insurance coverage trigger for a malicious prosecution claim. But in 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals finally rendered an opinion addressing this specific issue, with a twist in that the claimant was arrested during the policy period but was charged and prosecuted after the policy expired.

In Zook v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 784 S.E.2d 119 (2016), the claimant was arrested on May 21, 2009 after an incident at the insured’s nightclub. The claimant was charged with simple battery on March 1, 2010 and was prosecuted thereafter. After the jury found the claimant not guilty of simple battery, he commenced a lawsuit against the nightclub and its employees for false imprisonment, battery, negligence, malicious prosecution and malicious arrest. While that action was pending, the claimant filed a declaratory judgment action against the same defendants and Arch Specialty Insurance Company (“Arch”), which issued a CGL policy (“Policy”) to the nightclub from June 27, 2008 to June 27, 2009. The policy provided coverage for injury arising out of malicious prosecution if the offense was committed during the policy period. Arch took the position that the “offense” took place on March 1, 2010, when the claimant was charged with the crime for which he was prosecuted (simple battery). Because the Policy expired on June 27, 2009, Arch argued that no offense took place during the policy period.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Arch.

The Georgia Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. The Court noted that Georgia appellate courts had not yet addressed the issue of when a malicious prosecution claim arises for purposes of triggering insurance coverage. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the majority of other jurisdictions have held that “coverage is triggered when the insured sets in motion the legal machinery of the state.” Id. at 674. However, the Court disagreed with Arch’s interpretation of the majority holding because Arch focused on when the claimant was charged and relied on case law that dealt with a scenario in which the claimant was arrested and charged on the same date.

The Georgia Court of Appeals held that in this case, the arrest is the “bad act” of the insured that set the legal machinery of the state in action.  Id. at 675. In other words, the arrest was the “offense” that invoked the judicial process against the claimant, and the arrest took place during the Arch policy period. The Court held,

From the standpoint of a reasonable person in the position of the insured, policy coverage for injury arising from a malicious prosecution occurring during the policy period exists if the insured’s conduct in instituting such a prosecution took place during the covered period. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the majority rule that when the contract does not specify, insurance coverage is triggered on a potential claim for malicious prosecution when the insured sets in motion the legal machinery of the state.

Id. at 675-6.

The analysis pertaining to the trigger of coverage for wrongful incarceration and malicious prosecution cases are becoming more intricate and detail-oriented as the courts throughout the country are exposed to different fact patterns. To the extent that the claimant is arrested and charged during different policy periods, it appears that the first event of the arrest will be considered as the event that triggers coverage.

The next installment will review the law in Ohio. In the meantime, if there are any questions about other jurisdictions or jurisdictions already discussed, please contact us (sallykim@grsm.com or sries@grsm.com) and we can address your questions directly.

Filed under Duty to Defend, Personal and Advertising Injury, Trigger of Coverage

Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy

By and on August 29, 2017
Leave a comment

We previously reported the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Xia, et al. v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, et al., 188 Wn.2d 171, 393 P.3d 748 (2017), in which the Court applied the efficient proximate cause rule to a third-party liability policy to find a duty to defend.

To recap, Washington law requires insurers to assess and investigate coverage under first-party insurance policies by applying the efficient proximate cause analysis. Until Xia, the efficient proximate cause rule has only been applied to first party insurance policies in Washington. But the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Xia changed that by holding that an insurer must consider the efficient proximate cause rule in determining its duty to defend under a CGL policy.

The issue in Xia was whether the pollution exclusion applied to relieve ProBuilders of its duty to defend a claim against the insured alleging that carbon monoxide was released into the claimant’s house through a defectively installed vent. ProBuilders denied coverage to the insured contractor, in part, under the pollution exclusion. The Washington Supreme Court held that while ProBuilders did not err in determining that the plain language of its pollution exclusion applied to the release of carbon monoxide into Xia’s home, “under the ‘eight corners rule’ of reviewing the complaint and the insurance policy, ProBuilders should have noted that a potential issue of efficient proximate cause existed,” as Xia alleged negligence in her original complaint, i.e. failure to properly install venting for the hot water heater and failure to properly discover the disconnected venting.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the efficient proximate cause of the claimant’s loss was a covered peril – the negligent installation of a hot water heater. Even though ProBuilders correctly applied the language of its pollution exclusion to the release of carbon monoxide into the house, the Court ruled that ProBuilders breached its duty to defend as it failed to consider an alleged covered occurrence that was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law to the claimant with regard to her breach of contract and bad faith claims.

Soon after the Washington Supreme Court’s decision, ProBuilders filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision. However, on August 17, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court denied the motion, leaving in place the holding that insurers must take the efficient proximate cause rule when analyzing coverage under third-party policies.

As discussed in our earlier post, the efficient proximate cause rule applies “when two or more perils combine in sequence to cause a loss and a covered peril is the predominant or efficient cause of the loss.” Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 174 Wn.2d 501, 276 P.3d 300 (2012). “If the initial event, the ‘efficient proximate cause,’ is a covered peril, then there is coverage under the policy regardless of whether subsequent events within the chain, which may be causes-in-fact of the loss, are excluded by the policy.” Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co., 124 Wn.2d 618, 881 P.2d 210 (1994).

Insurers must be extremely cautious when assessing the duty to defend and an exclusion that could potentially preclude coverage. Under Xia, liability insurers must examine the underlying complaint very carefully to determine whether there could potentially be multiple causes of a loss, and if so, which cause is the initiating cause. If the initiating cause is potentially a covered event, then there may be coverage and the insurer must provide a defense under reservation of rights in order to minimize bad faith exposure.

If you would like more information on the efficient proximate cause rule in Washington, please feel free to contact Sally S. Kim (sallykim@grsm.com or 206-695-5147) or Stephanie Ries (sries@grsm.com or 206-695-5123).

Filed under Bad Faith, Commercial General Liability, Duty to Defend, First Party Policy, Pollution Exclusion

The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington’s IFCA

By and on July 31, 2017
Leave a comment

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) provides insureds with a statutory cause of action against their insurers for wrongful denials of coverage, in addition to a traditional bad faith cause of action. Unlike a bad faith cause of action, the IFCA allows for enhanced damages under certain circumstances. Under the language of the statute, “any first party claimant to a policy of insurance” may bring a claim under IFCA against its insurer for the unreasonable denial of a claim for coverage or payment of benefits. There has been a split of authority in Washington among both the state appellate courts and federal district courts regarding whether the term “first-party claimant” refers only to first-party policies (i.e., a homeowner’s policy or commercial property policy) or whether it refers to insureds under both first-party and liability policies (e.g., CGL policies which cover the insured’s liability to others). The IFCA expressly defines the phrase “first-party claimant” as “an individual, … or other legal entity asserting a right to payment as a covered person under an insurance policy or insurance contract arising out of the occurrence of the contingency or loss covered by such a policy or contract.”

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a “first-party claimant” means an insured under both first-party and liability policies (Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 176 Wn.App. 185 (2013)), but Division Three held that the IFCA applies exclusively to first-party insurance contracts (Tarasyuk v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2124 (2015)).

In the federal courts, the majority of decisions from the Western District of Washington have held that an insured with third-party coverage or first-party coverage can be a “first-party claimant” under IFCA. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Christensen, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 11097 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2015 ) (Judge Coughenour); City of Bothell v. Berkley Regional Specialty Ins. Co., 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 145644 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2014) (Judge Lasnik); Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2015 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 71256 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2015) (Judge Jones); Workland & Witherspoon, PLLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 141 F.Supp.3d 1148 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2015) (Judge Peterson). These decisions held that any insured who has a right to file a claim under the insurance policy is a “first-party claimant” under the IFCA regardless of whether the policy provides first-party or third-party coverage.

However, Judge Pechman of the Western District of Washington ruled that an insured with third-party coverage is not a “first-party claimant” under IFCA in Cox v. Continental Casualty Co., 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 68081 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014) and two subsequent cases. In Cox, Judge Pechman dismissed plaintiff’s IFCA claim on the ground that the insurance policy was a “third-party policy,” i.e. a third-party liability policy, and therefore the insured (who assigned his claim to the plaintiffs) was not a “first-party claimant.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the Cox decision on appeal, effectively resolving the split of authority in the federal courts in favor of a more limited interpretation of the IFCA. Cox v. Continental Casualty Co., 2017 U.S. App. 11722 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017).

Those watching this issue and looking for a reasoned analysis resolving the split of authority among the federal district courts in Washington will be disappointed, as the Ninth Circuit provided no basis for its holding on the issue, not even a recognition of the split among the courts. On the issue, the Court merely stated “[t]he policy in question is not a first party policy; thus, the Plaintiffs, standing in [the insured’s] shoes, cannot be a first party claimant.” The court’s failure to provide its reasoning for this holding is surprising, given that the parties addressed the split of authority in their briefs. Nonetheless, insurers should take note of this important decision limiting the scope of the IFCA in Washington’s federal courts.

Filed under Appellate, Bad Faith, Commercial General Liability, First Party Policy

California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions

By and on July 25, 2017
Leave a comment

In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company, a California appeals court found that an insurer was not entitled to rescind an insurance policy due to material misrepresentation and/or concealment of material facts as a matter of law. The court held that the insurer could not prove that the insured had made misrepresentations when he applied for the policy because the application questions at issue were ambiguous.

Victor Duarte bought a tenant-occupied rental property in 2001. Sometime thereafter, the daughter of the tenant moved into the rental property with her father, and continued to reside there after her father’s death in 2010. In February 2012, Duarte served the daughter with an eviction notice. The daughter did not leave the rental property and Duarte did not take any further action to remove her.

In April 2012, Duarte electronically submitted an application for a landlord insurance policy with defendant Pacific. Pacific issued a policy to Duarte covering the rental property the same day.

In June 2012, the tenant/daughter filed a lawsuit against Duarte for habitability defects at the rental property which allegedly existed since 2009. The lawsuit alleged that Duarte had been notified of these defects, and sought various damages arising from the defects. In August 2012, Duarte tendered defense of the lawsuit to Pacific which denied coverage and any duty to defend. Duarte then sued Pacific for breach of contract and other claims on the grounds that Pacific not only failed to defend the tenant lawsuit but also wrongfully cancelled his policy. In responding to the lawsuit, Pacific asserted a right to rescind the policy due to material misrepresentations on the application.

In cross-motions for summary judgment/adjudication, Pacific argued that it was entitled to rescind the policy because Duarte made material misrepresentations when he answered “no” to two questions on the application: (1) whether he knew of any disputes concerning the property; and (2) whether there were any businesses conducted on the property. In support of its position, Pacific submitted records regarding a March 2012 complaint filed by the tenant/daughter against Duarte with a public agency. Pacific also submitted a transcript of Duarte’s deposition in which he testified about his understanding about the complaint filed against him by the tenant/daughter. The trial court granted Pacific’s motion and denied Duarte’s motion. Duarte appealed, and the appeals court reversed.

The court held that Pacific did not meet its initial burden of proving that Duarte made misrepresentations on the insurance application. The court noted that the first application question at issue – “Has damage remained unrepaired from previous claim and/or pending claims, and/or known or potential (a) defects, (b) claim disputes, (c) property disputes, and/or (d) lawsuit?” – had “garbled syntax” and was “utterly ambiguous.” The court found that the evidence submitted by Pacific showed that Duarte knew of claims and/or disputes concerning the property. However, the court rejected Pacific’s position that the question required the answer, “yes” if there was unrepaired damage, any open or pending claims, potential defect, property disputes, or potential lawsuits. Given the question’s ambiguity, the court found that Duarte properly answered, “no” because he reasonably interpreted the question to ask whether the property had unrepaired damage associated in some way with previous or pending claims, defects, claims disputes, property disputes or potential lawsuits.

With regard to the second application question – “Is there any type of business conducted on the premises?” – the court noted that Pacific submitted evidence that showed that Duarte knew the tenant and tenant/daughter occasionally sold motorcycle parts from the rental property. Nonetheless, the court held that Duarte properly answered, “no,” because he reasonably interpreted the question as referring to “regular and ongoing business activity,” of which there was none to his knowledge.

Filed under Insurance, Rescission

← Older posts

Newer posts →