Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals handed down a new insurance case: Dolan v. Kemper Independence Insurance Company, No. 0084, September Term, 2017. Dolan reaffirmed that policyholders must participate in Examinations Under Oath (“EUOs”) in UM / UIM claims if their insurer asks for one. (An EUO is a recorded interview much like a deposition, but with even less rules.) This isn’t particularly novel. Phillips v. Allstate, 156 Md. App. 729 (2004) already said that about Collisi

Simmons v. Standard Fire Insurance (8:08-cv-01844-PJM, Doc 36, May 7, 2010) is another 27-1001 first party bad faith case out of the Federal District Court. It's unique in that the Court (dealing with a pro se defendant) explains exactly what kind of expert he wants to see to survive a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment. What This Case Is About Simmons had an house. The house had a bad fire in October 2006. Simmons had $140,000 in Dwelling Coverage and $42,000 in ALE c

I ran across a more pro-insured take on Clueless Clauses on FarellaCoverageLaw.com's Policyholder Perspective Blog. That thinks that Clueless Clauses are bad. I disagree with it, but it's definitely worth the read. Dennis Cusack (the author of the linked post) refers to the Clueless Clause as a Mistake Clause because they essentially exclude coverage if the insured makes a cyber security mistake. He points out that Clueless Clauses are horrible for insureds. They essentially

Another unreported Federal decision on Maryland’s First Party Bad Faith regime, §27-1001. This one involves a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a clarification of a not-particularly-obscure point about §27-301 et seq. (the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices statute), and confirmation of a prior decision about aggregation. Not in that order. The citation is All Class Construction v. Mutual Benefit Insurance, 1:13-cv-03358-JKB (Bredar, J.) (February 26, 2014). (As

Baltimore is not the first place afflicted by riots that caused coverage disputes. After the Martin Luther King riots in 1968, D.C. had a series of cases involving business interruption coverage and the government's curfew. (When I checked, I did not find any involving Maryland, but I can't imagine that none took place so I need to find time to check again.) In Bros., Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 268 A. 2d 611 (D.C. App. 1970), the D.C. Court of Appeals consider

The Baltimore Sun ran an article over the weekend that discussed business interruption insurance coverage because of the riots. That article took the view that the major problem is the war exclusion. I don't see that. The real problem is the Ordinance or Law exclusion. Why I doubt Insurers will use the "War and Military Action" exclusion The "War and Military Action" Exclusion (ISO Form CP 10 10 06 07 (2007)) excludes coverage for damage caused directly or indirectly by: (1)

Maryland just handed down a duty-to-defend advertising-injury case, Maryland Casualty Company v. Blackstone International Ltd. (Md. 2015). CGL insurer does not need to defend a breach of contract claim where plaintiff seeks a share of the profit/equity in a joint venture and the allegedly stolen advertising ideas/work product was used to benefit that venture but the use of those ideas did not directly harm plaintiff. I hate it when people discuss a case’s facts and include ev

The Court of Appeals just handed down Connors v. GEICO. I had been waiting for Connors because I have clients similarly situated to Connors. My side lost. What Happened Connors involved a dispute about how to read GEICO's UM/UIM section's Occurence Limit. The fact pattern breaks down simply. The Connors have $300,000 single limit UIM coverage ($300,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence) on a GEICO policy. Mr. and Mrs.Connors are injured by tortfeasor with $200,000 occurence

I'm not the only person who thinks the cert improvidently granted was a bad way to dispose of People's Insurance Counsel v. State Farm. Here's another blogger (one of many I suspect, although I haven't surveyed the field) with essentially the same opinion. Someday, I'm sure, we'll get an explanation for why People's Insurance Counsel v. State Farm was not cool enough to merit an opinion. But I'll venture a guess. Maybe the Court realized it was not going to change its precede

Thus far, precisely one case has interpreted Maryland's Bad Faith statute, Md. Code Insurance §27-1001: Cecelia Schwaber Trust Two v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 636 F.Supp.2d 481 (D.Md.2009) ("Schwaber III”). Schwaber III added a list of factors to consider when finding bad faith and clarified that Maryland used the "totality of the circumstances" approach. Facts Cecelia Schwaber Trust Two (“Schwaber”) owned a warehouse in Baltimore. Cecelia had insurance on the wa

Insurer acted in bad faith by not investigating a claim on the grounds that a pollution exclusion applied when that exclusion did not in fact apply. The MIA found that Allstate acted in bad faith by refusing to investigate a claim on the grounds that it believed it did not have to pay the claim under an exclusion. Upon hearing the circumstances of the claim, Allstate immediately concluded that the claim fell under a pollution exclusion. Allstate therefore did not investigate