The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, issued an opinion on Jan. 31, 2018, in Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Lester that allowed stacking of full auto liability coverage policy limits on four separate policies. The underlying matter involved bodily injury claims brought by multiple claimants. Each of the auto insurer’s liability policies had applicable bodily injury limits of $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident. Each policy also had the following anti-stacking provision:
If more than one policy issued by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company or Shelter ...
It is commonplace in construction projects for a contractor to require its subcontractors to purchase liability insurance that protects against certain claims and that includes the contractor as an additional insured. The problem is that many times the policy that the subcontractor purchases does not on its face meet the requirements set forth in the written agreement between the contractor and subcontractor. For example, the construction agreement may require liability insurance with higher limits of liability than that actually provided by the subcontractor’s policy, or ...
We all say things we regret. But sometimes, those things we say can be used against us. The same goes for insurance companies. So held the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, in its recent unpublished decision in Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Badri-Monaghan, 2017 IL App (2d) 170134-U. The court started the year with a decision finding an insurance company was estopped from asserting a coverage defense based on statements made to the insured by the agent. The policy required the insured to submit a written demand for arbitration, which she failed to do. The evidence showed ...
Background
Virtually all property policies provide an insurer with the right to rescind coverage when there’s evidence that the insured intentionally concealed or misrepresented material facts in their application for insurance. For a misrepresentation to be deemed material, it must have been an untrue fact that would have, if the truth was known, caused the insurer to reject the application. In other words, an insurer is entitled to truthful responses so that it can determine whether the applicant meets its underwriting criteria.
Under that backdrop, the U. S. Court of Appeals ...
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found private health insurers could seek double damages in federal court under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 685 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2012) is believed to be the first appellate case to reach this holding. The Court’s reasoning has been adopted by other circuits in similar cases. This case has significant implications for defendants and their insurers who settle cases or pay judgments involving Medicare Part C beneficiaries. Precautions employed to ...
The Madison County Circuit Court recently granted defendant U.S. Steel Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in the matter of Taylor v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., a/k/a Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Case No. 15 L 652. This was a wrongful-death case arising from alleged exposure to asbestos on U.S. Steel’s premises. A key question was whether U.S. Steel, as the premises owner, owed a duty under negligence law in Illinois to the spouse of an employee of an independent contractor who had worked at its facilities.
The decedent, Cheryl Taylor, developed and died from mesothelioma ...
In its October 31, 2017, opinion in Doe Run Resources Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins., the Missouri Supreme Court considered whether a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged bodily harm caused by exposure to toxic emissions emanating from Doe Run’s lead production facilities in La Oroya, Peru. The exclusion removed coverage for “injury or damage or medical expenses that result from pollution at, on, in…or from any…protected person’s premises.” The policy defined “pollution” to mean “any actual, alleged ...
Recently, in the matter of Tate v. Pecora Corp., Case No. 16-L-1399, the Madison County Circuit Court has dismissed a Plaintiff’s asbestos complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to M.M. ex rel. Meyers v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 61 N.E. 3d 1026 (Ill. App. 2016). In GlaxoSmithKline, the Chicago-based Illinois First Appellate District ruled that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing that their claims arose directly from, or were related to, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) “purposeful activities” in Illinois, that GSK failed to rebut this prima facie showing, and ...
Judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions of law, precludes a party from taking a position in a case that is contrary to a position it has taken in earlier legal proceedings. Often, it is asserted as an affirmative defense in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff failed to disclose the existence of the personal injury lawsuit as an asset in a prior bankruptcy. A plaintiff’s failure to disclose a personal injury cause of action in the bankruptcy proceeding deprives the trustee, and by proxy, the plaintiff’s creditors, of an asset that the creditors ...
Since 2005, Missouri attorneys have struggled with the interpretation and application of Missouri’s collateral source rule as it related to evidence of a plaintiff’s medical treatment bills. Generally speaking, the collateral source rule bars a defendant from introducing evidence that part of a plaintiff’s damages were paid for by a party other than the defendant; i.e., the plaintiff’s insurance company or some other form of public benefit. In Missouri, however, that rule had been applied to allow plaintiffs to present evidence of the total amount billed by a health care ...
