Example Of Coverage Cases

Jeffery Calkin, the defendant, leased a vehicle for our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc., and was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff, Jane White. A negligence suit was filed by Ms. White against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. The suit claims that our client is required to carry insurance and therefore has a duty to assume responsibility for this accident under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA).

A few days later, the BMC publicly announced that they would open claims offices in the valley to receive and process claims (“assess claims and evaluate losses”) but refused to admit responsibility for the disaster. WV statute law makes the maximum amount payable in wrongful

Levy introduced me to is contractual law. Mr. Levy allowed me to assist on insurance cases, which included observing meetings, summarizing depositions, and reviewing contracts. Even though I had experience reviewing contracts while working a couple of summers for a General Counsel at a large business, this was completely different because these agreements were among insurance companies and individuals, instead of insurance companies and businesses. Mr. Levy works on behalf of insurance companies, mostly State Farm, when they have disputes with their clients over wind and hail coverage. These cases are interesting because Mr. Levy has to not only deal with the individuals that are claiming the insurance company didn’t follow the contract, but he also must deal with the adjuster in each case. Mr. Levy gave me the responsibility of summarizing the depositions of the adjusters to confirm that none of them said anything that was contradictory or detrimental to State Farm’s case. Often these cases end with settlements or dismissals because either the insurance company decides to compensate the individuals or the attorney representing the insurance company gets a favorable summary judgment. Mr. Levy and other attorneys representing insurance companies frequently seek summary judgments when the plaintiffs don’t have significant evidence to prove that the insurance companies violated the contract. In most of the insurance cases that I assisted Mr. Levy on he was able to receive summary judgment because the plaintiffs didn’t have enough evidence to prove that State Farm was responsible for paying the

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

Rossi Inc. is a diversified manufacturer of industrial products. In 2008, Rossi updated its asbestos litigation liability, including the costs of settlement payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2017 for losses incurred to date. Before 2008, the Company’s previous estimate was for claims projected to be filed through 2011. As part of the 2008 update to the asbestos litigation liability, Rossi engaged Thompson and Associates, a consulting firm, to serve as an external specialist to estimate the claims liability for December 31, 2008. As a result of the 2008 update and the external specialist claims estimate, the Company significantly

COMES NOW, Defendant the State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through Mark J. Stiller, Esq., Bryant S. Green, Esq., and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, and hereby files this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery pursuant to Md. Rule 3-421(h), and in support thereof, states as follows:

Laurence Kaye (“Kaye”), appellant, an attorney, represented Linda Wilson-Gaskins (“Wilson-Gaskins”), appellee, in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against Wilson-Gaskins’s former employer, Government Employees Insurance Co. (“GEICO”). Following that representation, Wilson-Gaskins filed a complaint against Kaye alleging “legal malpractice.” The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of Kaye and dismissed Wilson-Gaskins’s complaint. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the dismissal of her claim. We affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and held that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie case for professional negligence. We further held that a release contained in a settlement agreement between the parties

Our client appears to have a solid case, but there are steps that we should take to better position our client for litigation.

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

Statement of Issues: American Golf Corp is requesting a review of the Fulton Superior Court (Georgia), which has favored Jeffrey and Haley Manley for the actual damages and approved the golf course operator’s motion for a directed verdict for punitive damages for the Manley’s for the negligence action at the golf course. They are suing the company of the golf course and seeking punitive damages. The court decided that American Golf Corp is responsible for punitive damages but has allowed the claims for actual damages to go to trial. In Case No. A96A0615, American Golf Corp appeals from a jury verdict of $140,000 for Jeffrey Manley and $10,000 for his wife, and in case No. A96A0616, plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for a pre-judgement interest.

This case involves a single motor vehicle accident that occurred on rural property located near Floresville, Texas. The accident occurred when the Co-Defendant, Lee Ricks, IV, drove his jeep off a ledge near the bank of the San Antonio River. The accident occurred at night and on property owned by Riverbend Development, LLC. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was occupied by Brittany Baltzell and the two Plaintiffs, Ashley Simmons and Austin Wright. Ms. Baltzelll was Mr. Ricks girlfriend at the time and she and Mr. Ricks were not seriously injured as a result of the accident. Both the Plaintiffs claim serious physical injuries and have sued Mr. Ricks for negligent driving. They have also sued the insureds, Riverbend Development, LLC

Hylant’s reserve philosophy remains unchanged since my last review, each claim is viewed at full value based on the documented damages, and then discounted by the pooling member’s share of liability and negligence. Another part of Hylant’s reserve analysis is the Ohio state immunity laws and how they may be applied in the defense of their claims. Under Ohio state immunity laws, both pooling plans (school districts & municipalities) are viewed as political subdivisions, and are therefore, entitled to certain statutory immunity defenses. Although these defenses are limited, they can assist in the dismissal of a claim or help mitigate the overall exposure of the claim. However, these defenses can be overcome by the plaintiffs’ bar by proving negligence

This insurance coverage case stems from a fatal car accident in Helena. Respondent Joel Powers, while driving his mother’s 1990 Eagle Summit, struck Benjamin Homan while Homan was on a bicycle. Power’s mother insured the 1990 Eagle Summit through Mid-Century Insurance Company (“Mid-Century”). Powers received a defense pursuant to that policy, and Mid-Century paid the applicable policy limit under Powers’ mother’s policy to the Homan Respondents. Powers also, however, had a separate Mid-Century policy that insured his 1996 Nissan truck (which was not involved in the accident). This case concerns the Mid-Century policy that insured Powers’ 1996 Nissan truck.

Ernst & Whinney should have evaluated the reliability of the insurance restoration contracts since it was created internally by ZZZZ Best. Furthermore, the limited details in the contracts as noted in the ten red flags that ZZZZ Best’s auditors allegedly overlooked should have raised certain professional skepticism of the auditors. While performing analytical procedures on ZZZZ Best’s financial statement, its auditors failed to notice the substantial excess in its profit margin for restoration projects comparing to the rest of the industry. Physical examination, although a very reliable type of evidence for auditors, was unreliable in this case. Barry Minkow and his accomplices went to great length to cover up their fraud and successfully deceived their auditor. Moreover, the auditors did not have the authority to corroborate evidence with outside third-party due to the confidentiality agreement with ZZZZ Best.

On February 24, 2017, the CRB met with the ARM, AGO, and the OPC to discuss the Tomahawk case. The objective was to decide between the full and partial take of the parcel. The appraisal was analyzed including the assumptions mentioned above. Considering the lack of visibility (misunderstood assumption) and lack of access assumptions the severance damages were calculated at 75% of the underlying unit price ($15.00/sf), which means that the Remaining cost of the parcel is 25% of $15.00/sf ($3.75/sf) . At that time, the AGO and CRB recommended the full take due to the simplicity of the process. Their reasoning on this recommendation was that the cost of the full take was 14% higher than the partial take cost. With this recommendation, the NDOT could avoid the risk of having further parcel associated claims from the parcel owner.