An insurer cannot require contribution from a co-insurer for the expenses of an insured’s defense where one insurer denies liability and the other refuses to defend, according to a recent opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In Auto-Owners Insurance… Continue Reading
About Logan Wells
4th Circuit Finds Insurer Was Not Required to Provide Notice Prior to Cancelling Life Insurance Policy for Unpaid Premium
An insured’s failure to make payments on his life insurance policy led it to lapse before his death according to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Wactor v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 13-2367, 2015 WL 1020653 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015). Rejecting the beneficiary’s contentions that the insurer had not properly notified the… Continue Reading
Auto Coverage for UberX Drivers Meets SC Requirements According to SCDOI
UberX may have passed one of the primary roadblocks to its business operations in South Carolina – meeting the state’s insurance requirements. In July 2014, UberX, a ridesharing service, expanded into South Carolina, offering transportation in four of the state’s major urban areas – Columbia, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and Greenville. UberX’s transportation service is offered… Continue Reading
In a Case of First Impression, District Court Finds an Insurer May Not Seek a Declaration as to Another Insurer’s Duty to Defend
An insurance company may not seek to require another insurer to defend its insured via declaratory judgment according to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 4:12-cv-3423-RBH, 2014 WL 3687338 (D.S.C. Jul. 22, 2014). The plaintiff in the… Continue Reading
SC Supreme Court Finds Family Member Exclusion in Florida Auto Policy Does Not Violate SC Public Policy
A Florida automobile insurance policy’s family exclusion did not violate South Carolina public policy according to an April 2014 opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court. In Green v. United States Automobile Association Auto and Property Insurance Company, a motor vehicle accident occurred in South Carolina when a mother was making a left turn at… Continue Reading
S.C. Supreme Court Finds CGL Policy Excludes Coverage Where Subcontractor Damages Insured’s Completed Work
A Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy did not provide coverage when a brick face was damaged by improper cleaning after the insured completed its installation according to a recent opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Finding exclusions j.(5) and n applied to remove coverage, the S.C. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit… Continue Reading
4th Circuit Finds Retired Insured Is Not Entitled to Benefits Under Disability Policy
Retired Insured Was Not Regularly Engaged in Occupation for Gain or Profit A disability income policy does not provide benefits to someone already retired, according to a July 2013, unpublished opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding the policy definitions of “your regular occupation” and “total disability” were unambiguous, the Fourth Circuit affirmed… Continue Reading
Methamphetamines vs. Narcotics – The Sequel
S.C. Supreme Court Reverses S.C. Court of Appeals; Holds Methamphetamine Is Not a Narcotic Post by Logan Wells The plain and ordinary meaning of narcotic in an insurance policy does not include methamphetamine according to a June 12, 2013 opinion of the S.C. Supreme Court. Finding the use of the term “narcotic” created, at a… Continue Reading
S.C. Court of Appeals Finds D&O Endorsement Excludes Coverage for Defective Construction Claims
A D&O endorsement excluded coverage for claims alleging damage to other property as a result of defective design or construction. According to a May 8, 2013 opinion of the S.C. Court Post by Logan Wells of Appeals, coverage for allegations against the insured for breach of fiduciary duty, however, was not excluded. In Pulliam v.… Continue Reading
S.C. Supreme Court Holds Limit of Liability Provision Is Neither Unconscionable nor Against Public Policy
Contractual limitation of a home inspector’s liability does not violate South Carolina public policy and, as a matter of law, is not unconscionable, according to a March 2013 opinion of the S.C. Supreme Court. Finding such limit of liability clauses are enforceable, the court specifically noted the lack of a requirement that home inspectors carry… Continue Reading
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »
