Reasonable Expectations Of The Insured

23 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Keene Corp. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  667 F.2d 1034· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the 'injury' triggering insurance coverage for asbestos-related diseases includes the progressive bodily process from exposure to manifestation, and that manufacturers should not be exempt from liability for uninsured periods.
• Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Rigoberto Hurtado
  587 So. 2d 1314· Fla.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that uninsured motorist coverage under an employer's business auto policy can only be stacked by named insureds and resident family members (class-one insureds), not by employees who are merely permitted to use employer vehicles (class-two insureds)
• Titan Holdings Syndicate, Inc. v. The City OF Keene
  898 F.2d 265· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that claims for damages from noise and light are not excluded by the pollution exclusion, and claims for interference with quiet enjoyment fall under personal injury coverage, obligating the insurers to defend and potentially indemnify.
• Houghton v. Am. Guar. Life Ins. Co.
  692 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that ambiguous terms in an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer, and that the policy covered post-termination medical expenses resulting from a sickness that occurred during the policy's term.
• Hanson v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  772 F.2d 580· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the term 'nursing service' in the insurance policy was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured, meaning the facility qualified as a hospital. However, the court also held that the insurer did not act in bad faith.
• Commerce Nat'l Bank IN Lake Worth v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am.
  252 So. 2d 248· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-07-22 ·cited 10×
• Mitsui Mfrs. Bank v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  795 F.2d 827· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the loss from uncollected, forged checks was excluded under the banker's bond, as the "on premises" exception did not apply because there was no irrevocable commitment to pay while the depositor was present.
• Vargas v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. OF Elections
  949 F.2d 665· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer owed coverage for civil rights violations and that attorney fees awarded to third parties were an element of damages, making the appeal timely only as to the final fee quantification. However, the court reversed an enhancement of attorney fees due t
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Gibralco, Inc.
  847 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that losses resulting from an employee's dishonesty, even if involving trading, are covered under the employee dishonesty provision of the insurance policy, not solely limited by the trading loss exclusion.
• Moncello v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  558 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-22 ·cited 3×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a summary judgment for an insurance company, holding that the plain language of a "claims made" malpractice policy covered an independent contractor broker for acts occurring before the policy period, as long as the claim was
• N. River Ins. Co. v. E. James Tabor for the Estate of Todd Tabor
  934 F.2d 461· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Pennsylvania law, set-off provisions in underinsured motorist coverage are void as against public policy and unenforceable, and that a specific set-off clause was ambiguous and thus ineffective. The court also affirmed that stacking of underinsured motor
• Ticor Title Ins. Co. OF Cal. v. Am. Res., Ltd.
  859 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 2×
• Brien Volpe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  802 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insured was covered under the policy for the accident, but reversed the award of attorney fees because the action was brought under federal law.
• Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Laurence Colbrese, Jr.
  368 F.2d 405· 9th Cir.· 1966-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insured's intent and actions, demonstrating dominion and control over a vehicle, established 'ownership' for insurance purposes, even if legal title transfer was incomplete under state statute.
• Denied
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-08-15
  The court held that the "prior knowledge exclusion" in the warranty letters, incorporated into the excess insurance policies, barred coverage for the noticed matters. Consequently, the Insureds' motion for advancement of defense costs was denied, and the Insurers' motion for summ
• Commerce Assocs., LP v. Hanover Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-02-22
  The court held that Commerce Associates, LP (CALP) is an "insured" under the insurance policies issued by Hanover Insurance Company because CALP is a member of the One Commerce Center Condominium Council and was sued with respect to the conduct of the Council's business. Therefor
• Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Am. Guar. & Liab. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2020-08-03
  The court held that the Tillery Letter did not constitute a "claim for damages" under the insurance policies because it lacked specificity regarding potential claimants and damages, thus it was a threat of future litigation, not a "claim made" prior to policy inception. Consequen
• Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-03-02
  The court granted Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defense Costs, finding that the "U.S. Bank Action" constituted a "Securities Claim" under the "Idearc Runoff Policies." Consequently, the court denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
• 20TH Century Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  965 F.2d 747· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-27
  The court held that Liberty's liability was $100,000 because the limiting clause in the rental agreement was not conspicuous, and that Admiral's excess policy attached after Liberty's primary policy was exhausted, not after 20th Century's policy.
• Consol. Am. Ins. Co. v. Mike Soper Marine Servs.
  942 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23
  An insurer's wrongful refusal to defend and rejection of a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits can render it liable for the full amount of the judgment, including amounts exceeding the policy limits, and accrued interest.
• Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. v. Bilyeu
  921 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-19
  The court held that the "commission of a crime" exclusion in the accidental death policy was ambiguous as applied to driving under the influence, and therefore coverage was not excluded.
• Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Forsythe
  915 F.2d 1212· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-05
  The court held that the American Standard insurance policy was void ab initio due to material misrepresentations, and that the uninsured motorist coverage provided by Cameron Mutual Insurance Company could be stacked, with per occurrence limits applying to the distinct claims.
• Kleckner v. The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  822 F.2d 1316· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-30
  The court held that the insurance policy was not effective upon delivery because the insured had applied for alternate policies and had not yet made a selection. The selection and premium payment, made after the insured knew he had cancer, constituted a breach of his representati