About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/aliliabil9930 and id is 1 raw text is: LIABILITY INSURANCE CHAPTER 1. BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT RULES TOPIC 2. WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL § 5. Waiver D.Me.2021. Com. (h) cit. in ftn. Insured sued insurer, alleging that he was entitled to legal fees for his defense in two underlying actions arising from the same incident, in which he was accused of accessing his former spouse's medical records and email accounts without her knowledge or consent. After removal, this court granted in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that defendant's duty to defend against the actions either could not be determined at this point of the litigation or ended when plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with former spouse. Citing Restatement of Liability Insurance § 5, Comment h, the court noted that the parties disagreed over whether defendant successfully retracted its recognition of its duty to defend shortly after the settlement agreement, but it declined to determine the issue. Burka v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 521 F.Supp.3d 97, 102. D.Me.2021. Com. (b) quot. in sup. Beneficiary of insured under a voluntary life-insurance policy offered by insured's employer sued insurer that issued the policy to employer, alleging that insurer improperly capped the benefits available to beneficiary under the policy on the ground that it had not received an evidence of insurability form from insured. This court granted insurer's motion for judgment on the administrative record, holding that beneficiary had not met her burden of establishing that insurer knowingly and voluntarily waived the requirement to provide the form under Restatement of Liability Insurance § 5. The court rejected beneficiary's argument that waiver could be established based on employer's actions because employer acted as insurer's agent, reasoning, in part, that employer did not have actual authority to act on insurer's behalf. Shields v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, 527 F.Supp.3d 22, 35. CHAPTER 2. MANAGEMENT OF POTENTIALLY INSURED LIABILITY CLAIMS TOPIC 1. DEFENSE § 18. Terminating the Duty to Defend a Legal Action C.A.7, 2021. Quot. in diss. op. Insurer brought an action for declaratory judgment against, among others, insured, alleging that it had no duty to indemnify defendant against underlying vicarious-liability claims brought by the estate of a deceased roofing worker, who was employed by subcontractor, because those claims were meritless. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed with modifications, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff's duty to indemnify was extinguished when it entered into a settlement agreement with the estate for the wrongful acts of defendant's COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved A -I-I Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most