Blog

Policy Wording Determines Whether A Single Per Person Limit Applies to Loss of Consortium Claims

Posted by Haight and Brown and Bonesteel LLP on Nov 28th 2018

Policy Wording Determines Whether A Single Per Person Limit Applies to Loss of Consortium Claims
September 28, 2018 In Jones v. IDS Property Casualty Ins. Co. (No. C084065, filed 9/25/18), a California appeals court found that while there is a split of authority in the case law, under the insurer’s applicable policy wording a wife’s claim for loss of consortium was subject to the same per person limit of the defendant’s insurance policy as her husband’s claim for bodily injury.In Jones, the insured was sued for an auto accident, and stipulated to a judgment of $1.35 million for the other d
Read more

Joginder Singh dba Singh AP Transport v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Posted by Court of Appeals of the State of Washington on Sep 28th 2018

Joginder Singh dba Singh AP Transport v. Zurich American  Insurance Company
In this case, a semi-truck owned by Joginder Singh was at fault for an accident which ultimately involved sixteen vehicles (one of which was a logging truck). In one of those vehicles, a nine-year-old passenger was killed. An adult named Brian Sykes was in another of the vehicles. The estate for the child that was killed filed a claim against the semi-truck company and the logging truck company. In January of 2013, Singh’s counsel asked Singh’s insurer to permit him to personally contribute $1,0
Read more

Court Upholds California Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Enforce Insurance Regulations

Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Sep 28th 2018

Court Upholds California Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Enforce Insurance Regulations
In PacifiCare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jones (No. G053914, filed 9/20/18), a California appeals court upheld the California Insurance Commissioner’s authority to impose a $173 million penalty on a health insurer based on a finding of multiple violations of the State’s Insurance Code and insurance regulations.In PacifiCare, the Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones, imposed the fines after finding 900,000 violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code §§ 790, et seq., “UIPA”). Insu
Read more

Oregon Case Law Update: Oregon Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on a PIP Insurer’s Duty to Promptly Pay PIP Benefits after Receiving Proof of Loss

Posted by Cliff J. Wilson on Sep 28th 2018

Oregon Case Law Update: Oregon Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on a PIP Insurer’s Duty to Promptly Pay PIP Benefits after Receiving Proof of Loss
Under Oregon’s no-fault personal injury protection (“PIP”) statute, insurers must provide certain benefits (e.g. medical expenses and wage loss) to insured drivers involved in car accidents, without regard to fault. In the case of PIP medical benefits, the statute requires that benefits must be paid “promptly” after receiving proof of loss. The statute also provides that PIP medical expenses are deemed “reasonable and necessary” unless the PIP insurer provides the medical provider notice of deni
Read more

New Jersey Finally Adopts Daubert

Posted by Brian C. Harris of BHSM on Sep 14th 2018

New Jersey Finally Adopts Daubert
On August 1, 2018 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Accutane Litigation, 2018 WL3636867 wherein the Court abandoned Frye’s “General Acceptance” requirement for admission ofscientific evidence under Rule 702. In doing so, it extended the gatekeeping function of the trial courtand obligated it to ensure that an expert’s testimony was both reliable and relevant before admitting itto the jury.When considering admissibility of scientific evidence the Court adopted the Daubert s
Read more