SDV Blog

SDV Amicus Brief Contributes to Policyholder-Friendly OutcomeJun 23, 2017

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently relied on an SDV amicus brief to decide a case favorable to policyholders. In Amberleigh Hudson v. GEICO Insurance Agency, 2017 WL 2622777 (R.I. June 16, 2017), the Court held that an automobile passenger was still “occupying” the vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage after exiting the vehicle to help an accident victim. Ms. Hudson was seated in her boyfriend’s parked car when…

Read More »
Insurer Appeals Dismissal of Subrogation Claim Against Freight CarrierJun 23, 2017

An insurer of a pharmaceutical company is appealing a New Jersey District Court’s dismissal of its subrogation claim against a freight carrier that was transporting a $9 million pharmaceutical shipment when it was stolen. The District Court identified that the freight carrier and the pharmaceutical company “expressly waived” the Carmack Amendment, the exclusive cause of action for interstate shipping claims over property loss or damage, in its shipping agreement. As…

Read More »
State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement ExclusionsJun 15, 2017

The West Virginia Supreme Court recently held that an insurance policy’s exclusion for loss resulting from earth movement “caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused” unambiguously excluded coverage for property damage resulting from a landslide that resulted, at least in part, from manmade causes.  This result is significantly different from an older Florida Supreme Court case, which held that an earth movement exclusion that did not unambiguously exclude…

Read More »
New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured EndorsementsJun 09, 2017

In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only…

Read More »