CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 10 affirmed a lower federal court’s finding that an insurer has no duty to provide coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging that its plastics company insured manufactured a faulty laminate (Berry Plastics Corp. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., No. 17-1815, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25576).
DENVER — An insured recently asked the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that he failed to show that material issues of fact exist as to whether his insurer acted in bad faith in denying his claim for coverage under the terms of a commercial property insurance policy (Billy Hamilton v. Northfield Ins. Co., No. 17-7049, 10th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer did not act in bad faith in deducting estimated costs for demolition and debris removal from an appraisal award because the policy required the insurer to pay those costs only after they were incurred, a Pennsylvania federal judge said Aug. 27 in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss (Fred Williams v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Co., No. 18-0675, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145493).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A New Mexico federal judge on Aug. 30 dismissed an insured’s claims for breach of contract and bad faith with leave to amend after determining that it is not clear which particular provision of the auto insurance contract that the insurer is alleged to have violated (Dana Schwartz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 18-328, D. N.M., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149153).
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — An insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims against an auto insurer will proceed because an issue of fact exists as to when the claims against the auto insurer accrued, an Alaska federal judge said Aug. 31 in denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (Emma L. Hickel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 17-255, D. Alaska, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149576).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal judge on Aug. 27 refused to dismiss an insured’s claims for bad faith and unfair claims practices after determining that the insured’s allegations arising out of the insurer’s refusal to pay the full policy limits for an underinsured motorist claim are sufficient to support the claims (Brooke Pribyl v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-2068, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145918).
HARTFORD, Conn. — In a dispute over insureds’ damages from cracking in their basement walls from the use of defective concrete, a Connecticut federal judge on Sept. 5 granted summary judgment to an insurer on breach of contract and bad faith claims against it (Kenneth T. Courteau, et al. v. Teachers Insurance Co., No. 16-00580, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150784).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer has no duty to provide coverage for damages incurred as a result of a sewer line failure to a building that housed an insured restaurant because the policy at issue did not provide coverage for buildings and clearly excluded coverage for damages caused by subsurface water, a California federal judge said Sept. 5 in entering summary judgment in favor of the insurer (Ken Tu, et al. v. Dongbu Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 17-3495, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151322).
LAS VEGAS — Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on an insurance bad faith claim in favor of an insurer because the insurer failed to show that it had a reasonable basis for denying an insured’s claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, a federal judge in Nevada ruled Sept. 4 in granting in part and denying in part several motions for partial summary judgment (Angelica Fernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 17-0731, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150348).
PHOENIX — A federal judge in Arizona on Aug. 31 ruled that an insured failed to show that his automobile insurance provider engaged in any undue delay in its evaluation of the insured’s underinsured motorist claim because the insurer was the excess insurer and began its investigation of the claim the same day the primary insurer provided its policy limits to the insured (Gary Nerdig, et al. v. Electric Insurance Co., No. 17-1859, D. Ariz., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148836).
DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on Aug. 29 granted a disability insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a disability plan participant’s claims for common-law bad faith and statutory bad faith after determining that the participant failed to prove that the insurer acted unreasonably in handling a claim for long-term disability benefits (Brenda Sandoval v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 17-644, D. Col., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147184).
KALAMAZOO, Mich. — A Michigan federal judge on Aug. 17 refused to dismiss an insured’s suit alleging that an insurer acted in bad faith in settling underlying claims arising out of the insured’s sale of defective artificial knee joints after determining that the insured stated a viable claim for bad faith that was not addressed in either of two prior lawsuits filed by the insured against the insurer (Stryker Corp. et. al., v. XL Insurance America Inc., No. 17-66, W.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140216).
SEATTLE — A district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of an auto insurer on an insured’s extracontractual claims because a reasonable jury could conclude that, based on the evidence, the insurer superficially reviewed the insured’s records, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Aug. 29 (Ruth Jelinek v. American National Property and Casualty Co., No. 16-36057, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24557).
LOS ANGELES — An insured’s insurance breach of contract and bad faith claims against his homeowners insurance provider were barred by the policy’s one-year limitations period to bring any action after a loss, a California appellate panel ruled Aug. 27 in affirming a state trial court’s grant of the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (David Watts v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, No. B276123, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5798).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Aug. 28 granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s claims for bad faith, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act because the insured’s complaint does not allege anything more than a contract dispute (Charlotte R. Carroll v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 18-458, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146032).
WHEELING, W.Va. — A West Virginia federal judge on Aug. 27 remanded a bad faith suit filed by insureds whose homeowners claim was denied after determining that the amount in controversy requirement has not been met because the complaint does not include any specific monetary demand (Nathaniel Realty LLC et al., v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 18-110, N.D. W.Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145264).
SHERMAN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Aug. 21 ruled that insureds have provided sufficient evidence supporting their claim that their insurer and its claims adjuster acted in bad faith in failing to conduct a proper investigation of their homeowners insurance claim to survive a motion for summary judgment (Mike Sanchez, et al. v. Safeco Insurance of Indiana, No. 17-0892, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141169).
NEW ORLEANS — Although an insured’s insurance bad faith claims against its insurer in a property insurance dispute were not prescribed, dismissal of the claim is still warranted because the insurer had no duty to inform the insured of the policy’s limitation period and the insured failed to show that the insurer’s denial of its proof of loss was “arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause,” a federal judge in Louisiana ruled Aug. 21 in partially granting the insurer’s summary judgment motions (NAZ LLC v. United National Insurance Co., No. 17-5697, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141274).
FORT WORTH, Texas — Insureds cannot maintain a bad faith claim against their insurer arising out of the adjustment of a property damage claim because the insureds failed to prove that the insurer’s investigation was unreasonable or that the insurer had no reasonable basis for denying coverage, a Texas federal judge said Aug. 23 (Commercial Properties Enterprises Inc., et al. v. Great Lakes Insurance Co., No. 17-861, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143349).
FRANKFORT, Ky. — A trial court did not err in granting an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a third-party claimant’s bad faith claim because the claimant failed to prove any of the elements to establish a bad faith claim against the auto insurer, the Kentucky Court of Appeals said Aug. 24 (Leann Eastridge v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2017-461, Ky. App., 2018 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 625).