fidelity and guaranty insurance company

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Insurance Bad Faith Legal News
Headline Insurance Bad Faith Legal News from LexisNexis®

• Timely Notice Of Claim To Agent Was Notice To Insurer, Panel Affirms
  SEATTLE - Directors and officers sued an insurer for bad faith because it denied coverage on the basis that it had not received timely notice of a claim, when, in fact, it did receive timely notice through a broker acting as the insurer's agent, a Washington appeals panel found Aug. 25, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the insurer's cross-claim for contractual and equitable indemnity (Royal Insurance Company of America v. Brady & Company Inc., and Marsh Inc., No. 59924-1-I, Wash. App., Div. I). Full story on lexis.com
• Panel: New York Law Governs Bad Faith Cross-Claim
  NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found Aug. 19 that "the location of the subject matter" of excess insurers' bad faith cross-claims against a primary insurer points strongly toward New York, affirming a lower court's choice of New York law in granting the primary insurer's motion to amend the judgment because a jury concluded that the insurer did not act with "gross disregard" of the rights of excess insurers (Bernard L. Schwartz, plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee, Twin City Fire Ins. Co., defendant-cross-defendant-counter-claimant-appellee, Royal Indemnity Co., defendant-cross-defendant v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., defendant-cross-claimant-appellant, North American Specialty Ins. Co., defendant-counter-claimant-cross-claimant-appellant, No. 07-2794-cv, 07-2818-cv, 2nd Cir., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17680; See 6/5/07, Page 5). Full story on lexis.com
• Panel: No Duty To Defend, No Griggs Violation
  PHILADELPHIA - An insurer's contractual duty to defend was never implicated by an underlying complaint and, therefore, there can be no breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing for failing to properly investigate under Griggs v. Bergram (443 A.2d 163 [N.J. 1982]), the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Aug. 12 (County of Gloucester, et al. v. The Princeton Insurance Co., Summit Risk Services Inc. General Star Indemnity Co., No. 07-1179, 3rd Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17397). Full story on lexis.com
• No Evidence Suggests Insurer Knew It Was Unreasonable In Hiring Investigator
  DENVER - A Colorado federal judge on Aug. 20 rejected a beneficiary's contention that an insurer acted in bad faith by hiring an investigator "without checking whether he was fluent in the local language to investigate a foreign death claim," further finding that no evidence suggests that the insurer knew that it was acting unreasonably in hiring the investigator (Maricela Carbajal v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., No. 06?cv?00884?EWN?KLM, D. Colo.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63767). Full story on lexis.com
• Judge: Insurer's Investigation Of Property Was 'Reasonable'
  TACOMA, Wash. - A Washington federal judge on Aug. 8 ruled that although a more probing investigation may have uncovered more information, an insurer is not required to undertake the most extensive investigation possible, granting the insurer's cross-motion for summary judgment as to its duty to investigate (GCG Associates LP v. American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania, No. C07-792BHS, W.D. Wash.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61921). Full story on lexis.com
• Judge: Possible Absence Of 'Special Relationship' Factually Disputed
  PORTLAND, Ore. - The possible absence of a "special relationship" between an insurer and its insureds is factually disputed and cannot be the basis for a dismissal of three tort claims, including bad faith, an Oregon federal judge ruled Aug. 12 (The Regence Group, Regence BlueShield, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, Regence BlueShield of Idaho, and Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah v. TIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 07-1337-HA, D. Ore.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62731). Full story on lexis.com
• Issues Of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment On Bad Faith Claim, Judge Rules
  COLUMBUS, Ga. - The record reveals at least a fact question as to whether an insurer's litigation claims representative believed an attorney had the apparent authority to bind his client to a settlement, a Georgia federal judge ruled Aug. 8, denying summary judgment in favor of either party on the claim for negligent and/or bad faith failure to settle (Fife M. Whiteside, trustee in bankruptcy v. Infinity Casualty Insurance Co. f/k/a Atlanta Casualty Co., No. 4:07-CV-87 (CDL), M.D. Ga., Columbus Div.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60512). Full story on lexis.com
• Judge: Insurer's Conduct After It Failed to Accept Demand Not Relevant To Bad Faith Claim
  ATHENS, Ga. - An insurer's conduct after it failed to accept a time-limited policy limits demand, no matter how bad, is not relevant to its bad faith or negligence in failing to settle the claim within the policy limits, a Georgia federal judge found Aug. 5. However, the judge granted discovery of information that relates to the insurer's initial decision not to accept the policy limits offer even if that information occurred after the decision not to pay the policy limits was made (John A. Dickerson, administrator of the Amy Sue Walker Estate v. American National Property and Casualty Co., No. 3:07-CV-111 (CDL), M.D. Ga., Athens Div.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61270). Full story on lexis.com