Showing all results for category “News”

Florida District Court Holds 5-year Statute of Limitations Tolled for 10 Business Days in Hurricane Irma Claim

Michael Scott examines a Southern District of Florida decision involving a Hurricane Irma claim where the Court held that the 5-year statute of limitations was tolled for 10 business days by Fla. Stat. § 627.70152(3)(b)

First District Court of Appeal Renders Public Adjuster Contract Void in Dispute Between Insureds and Public Adjuster

Kelly Vogt breaks down a dispute between insureds and their public adjuster in which the First District Court of Appeal found the PA contract to be void. The contract collected a 10% fee and stipulated that the insureds name their PA as an appraiser in the event of appraisal.

Court Finds No Bad Faith Remedy in the Absence of Contract Breach

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, September 5, 2023

The 1st District Appellate Court recently reaffirmed that section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/155, does not create liability but merely provides an extracontractual remedy for an insurer’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct.

An Appellate Trap Arising In Liability Coverage Rulings – An Order Finding That An Insurer Has a Duty to Defend Must Actually Compel The Insurer To Defend To Be Immediately Appealable

By Melinda S. Kollross

In Zenith Ins. Co. v. Newell, No. 21-1748 (3rd Cir. 8-24-23), the Third Circuit Court of Appeal identified a fatal jurisdictional error to having an appellate court review a trial court interlocutory order declaring that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured…and the decision illustrates the wisdom of always having appellate counsel review orders to make sure they “dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s” so that subject matter jurisdiction can be transferred from the trial court to the appellate court.

Fourth DCA Reverses Verdict Entered in Favor of Insurer and Orders New Trial Regarding Constant and Repeated Seepage Exclusion

Zachary D. Sonenblum breaks down the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s reversal of the verdict entered in favor of the insurer in Feldman v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. The court ordered a retrial to determine whether the insurer’s cited policy exclusion precluded coverage.

Middle District of Florida Denies Insured’s Motion for Summary Judgment and To Compel Appraisal because Appraisal Is Premature Due to Unresolved Coverage Dispute

Zachary Sonenblum examines the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida’s denial of a motion for summary judgment and motion to compel appraisal. Appraisal was deemed premature due to the existence of an underlying coverage dispute.

Coverage Counsel or Claims Adjuster? The Discovery Obstacles Facing Insurance Companies Trying To Protect Privileged Communications With Their Counsel

Colleen Beverly examines a decision by the New York federal court in the case of Cadaret Grant & Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. that held information exchanged between an insurance adjuster and its coverage counsel is not privileged.

Kollross and Sampen’s Loper Filing Selected As “Amicus Brief of the Month”

Each month Capital Appellate Advocacy’s All Things Amicus features an “Amicus Brief of the Month”—an amicus brief that was authored by other attorneys.

This month the site features the Supreme Court amicus brief that Melinda Kollross and Don Sampen of Clausen Miller,

Seventh Circuit Issues Standing Decision Favorable to the Defense and Insurance Industry: Baysal v. Midvale Indem. Co., No. 22-1892 (7th Cir. 8-22-23)

By Melinda S. Kollross

In a data breach decision favorable to the defense and insurance industry, the Seventh Circuit in a split decision authored by Judge Easterbrook holds that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for the improper disclosure of their driver’s license numbers because the plaintiffs had not shown they suffered any concrete injury from the disclosures.

1st District Holds Broker Had No Obligation to Additional Insured

Don Sampen examines a 1st District Appellate court’s decision that an insurance broker does not have liability to an additional insured after helping the named insured avoid payment to that party.