Insurer That Acted “Quickly and Diligently” Did Not Breach Duty to HomeownersNovember 30, 2011 |
After their son allegedly injured a man in a bar fight, the injured man’s lawyer sent a letter to the couple’s lawyer stating that he intended to pursue legal remedies against the couple’s son. The couple’s lawyer forwarded the letter to the insurance company that had issued the couple a homeowners’ insurance policy, and the insurer opened a claim file and assigned a claims investigator, who began to investigate the incident and claim.
Within a matter of weeks, the couple agreed to pay $425,000 to the injured man, who agreed not to pursue criminal or civil claims against their son. The insurer then sought a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the couple.
The court found that the insurer had not breached any duty it may have had to the couple. The court explained that the insurer’s claims investigator had promptly begun investigating the claim, even responding to a demand letter by rejecting an offer to settle for $800,000. After that point, the claims investigator visited the bar where the fight had taken place, attempted to interview many witnesses and speak with attorneys involved in the case, and obtained various reports and transcripts. Moreover, fewer than three weeks after receiving the initial demand letter, the claims investigator issued a reservation of rights letter that explicitly told the couple that the insurer would continue to handle the claim despite some doubt that coverage existed.
The court pointed out that, despite the claims investigator’s “attentiveness and the reassurance of the reservation of rights letter,” the couple went ahead with negotiations and authorized their attorneys to reach a settlement with the injured man.
Because the insurer “acted quickly and diligently to uncover the facts relating to the incident and the value of the claim,” the court concluded that there was no basis for concluding that it had breached any duty to defend that might have existed. Accordingly, it concluded, the insurer was not obligated to reimburse the couple for the amounts they paid to defend, or to “negotiate” the claim. It also did not have any obligation to reimburse the couple for the settlement because it was a “voluntary payment” that was expressly forbidden by the policy. [Vermont Mutual Ins. Co. v. Maguire, No. 10-1542 (1st Cir. Oct. 31, 2011).]
Case & Point
Recent noteworthy decisions
Pollution Exclusion Bars Claims that Employees Were Injured by Benzene in Gasoline Vapor
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., was sued by two employees who claimed they had suffered injuries as a result of exposure to benzene in gasoline vapor, which “made the air they inhaled impure, harmful, and dangerous.” Racetrac sought coverage under its commercial general liability insurance policies, but the court found that that the employees’ claims fell “squarely within the policies’ pollution exclusion.”
The court also determined that the pollution exclusion did not violate public policy because the policies were primarily intended to provide Racetrac with coverage “for the countless other risks associated with operating convenience stores.” [Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 11-12023 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).]
IP Exclusion Bars Coverage for All Claims Where Suit Alleges Patent Infringement
After a federal district court granted summary judgment against Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., on its claim that its insurer owed it a duty to defend an underlying patent infringement action filed by Digene Corporation, Ventana appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court pointed out that the Intellectual Property exclusion in the insurance policy excluded coverage for “any other injury … alleged in a claim or suit that also alleges [patent] infringement.” Thus, because Digene’s complaint alleged patent infringement, the insurer had no duty to defend against any other claims potentially covered by the policy, the Ninth Circuit ruled. The circuit court concluded by noting that Ventana’s arguments that the exclusion was not enforceable were “not persuasive.” [Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 10-16520 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2011).]