CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 1
Georgia Supreme Court Holds No Bad Faith Failure To Settle Where Settlement Offer Did Not Contain Express Time Limitation
In First Acceptance Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Hughes, No. S18G0517, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 161, 2019 WL 1103831, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a plaintiff’s settlement offer did not contain an express time limitation on its acceptance, where a plaintiff’s communications (1) expressed interest in attending an insurer’s proposed settlement conference; (2) in the alternative, offered to settle the plaintiff’s claim for the available policy limits; (3) requested that the insurer provide certain insurance information within 30 days and that insurer amend that information if inconsistent facts subsequently came to light; and (4) stated that any settlement would be conditioned upon receipt of that insurance information.
Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act: What Does It Mean To Be “Aggrieved”?
On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court decided in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. January 25, 2019), whether a person is “aggrieved” under the Biometric Information Act (“Act”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., where there is no specific allegation of “some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation” of the Act.
No “Collapse” Where Cracked Basement Walls Remain Standing
Dozens of suits are currently pending in state and federal courts arising from faulty concrete used to pour the foundations of roughly 35,000 homes across northeastern Connecticut. Those foundations are exhibiting visible cracking which can allegedly cost up to $250,000 per home to fix.
Malicious Prosecution Coverage: Court Creates Conflict In Illinois
Liability policies issued to municipalities and law enforcement agencies, as well as CGL policies generally, typically provide coverage for the tort of malicious prosecution. Most definitions of the tort provide that it does not “accrue” until the claimant, who has been wrongfully prosecuted and perhaps convicted and jailed, has been fully exonerated.
“Knowing Violation” And “Criminal Acts” Exclusions Do Not Preclude Duty To Defend Where At Least Some Underlying Claims Do Not Require Proof Of Insured’s Knowledge/Intent Or Criminal Conduct
In West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ixthus Med. Supply, Inc., 2019 WI 19, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed an appellate court’s holding that there was a duty to defend under a commercial general liability insurance (“CGL”) policy where the underlying pleadings alleged that the insured had engaged in advertising activities that caused injury to the underlying plaintiff.
Drone Technology Is Taking Off—Are Insurance Companies Ready For It?
Given the explosion of drone technology in recent years, it was only a matter of time before a coverage dispute arose over the use of drones. On December 7, 2018, that time came when the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an opinion on whether an aircraft exclusion applied to damages sustained by a wedding guest when she walked into the photographer’s drone.