Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company, No
Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company, No. 2:2020cv00118 - Document 67 (W.D. Wash. 2021) case opinion from the Western District of …
Actived: 5 days ago
New York Insurance Law § 2336 (2021)
§ 2336. Motor vehicle liability, comprehensive and collision insurance rates; premium reductions in certain cases. * (a) (1) Any schedule of rates or rating plan for motor vehicle liability and collision insurance submitted to the superintendent shall provide for an actuarially appropriate reduction in premium charges for any insured for a three year period after successfully …
2021 Rhode Island General Laws :: Title 27
Rules and regulations — Auto insurance buyer's guide. (a) The director of the department of business regulation is authorized and empowered to promulgate rules and regulations to compile data regarding automobile insurance premiums. Those rules shall be promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, chapter 35 of title 42.
FRANKLIN (MALINDA), ET AL. VS. SAFE AUTO INSURANCE …
Consequently, we find that they were the owners of the vehicle for purposes of insurance coverage and were entitled to summary judgment on this issue. The relevant facts of this action are not in dispute. In 2003, the Franklins secured a policy of motor vehicle insurance from Safe Auto. The policy period covered October 26, 2003 to April 26, 2004.
Insurance required -- Minimum coverage. (a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle within this state unless both the vehicle and the person's operation of the motor vehicle are covered by a certificate of self-insurance under the provisions of 27-19-107 or by an insurance policy issued by an insurance company
Morette v Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co., Inc
At the time of the incident, a commercial auto insurance policy was in effect issued by Merchants to "A.T. Morette Electric LLC", a limited liability company of which Morette was the sole member. Also in force was an automobile liability policy issued by Kemper to Morette and his wife. Both policies provided supplementary uninsured motorists
Veronica's Auto Insurance Services Inc v. Veronica's
For the 21 reasons stated in this order, the Motions are DENIED. 22 I. Background 23 This is a trademark action between two auto insurance 24 businesses located in Southern California. Plaintiff and 25 counterdefendant Veronica’s Auto Insurance Services, Inc. (“VAIS”) 26 is a Southern California business with multiple branches.
Schmitt, E. v. State Farm Auto Insurance :: 2021
J-A06023-20 2021 PA Super 5 EDWARD J. SCHMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIELLE N. LUTEMAN, DECEASED Appellee v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY AND GARY J. ROOT & GARY J. ROOT AGENCY, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE …
California Insurance Code :: 2009 California Code
2009 california insurance code general provisions .. 1-48 division 1. general rules governing insurance part 1. the contract chapter 1. classes of insurance .. 100-124.5 chapter 1.5. risk retention .. 125-140 chapter 2. parties, events, and interests article 1.
Auto Owners Insurance v. Clayton et al, No. 2:2021cv00092
auto owners insurance v. clayton et al doc. 28 filed 2021 oct 28 pm 2:58 clerk u.s. district court in the united states district court for the district of utah auto-owners insurance company, memorandum decision and order denying motion for default judgment plaintiff, v.
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jackson :: 1994 :: Court of
The record contains the insurance policy covering Mincey's car at the time of the collision, and that policy provided uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000. Long before Davis' action against Dixon was filed, defendant had legally denied coverage, thus rendering Dixon's motor vehicle "uninsured" for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage.
CHAPTER 6. CANCELLATION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE …
"Automobile insurance policy" means a policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state or covering a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability, medical payments, and uninsured motorists or any combination thereof, and insuring as the named insured a natural
1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company v. A. P. :: 2021
Nonetheless, that term “is commonly found in auto insurance policies and has been defined by our case law.”6 Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Jacobson, 2011 WI App 140, ¶12, 337 Wis. 2d 533, 804 N.W.2d 838. Prior cases teach that while “use” is a broad term and is given a liberal construction, “it is not without limitation.”
Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. Bahena :: 2019 :: Illinois
OPINION Plaintiff, Direct Auto Insurance Company (Direct Auto), 1 raises two issues in its brief ¶1 to this court: (1) whether the trial court erred in entering a default judgment against it and (2) whether, prior to entry of the default judgment, the trial court erred in denying its motion 1 Since Noel Hernandez is the plaintiff in the
Kimberly Barclay, et al. v. State Auto Insurance Companies
At the time of their marriage, Kimberly had an auto insurance policy on her 1990 Pontiac with State Auto ("Policy"), and Kimberly was the only named insured on the Policy. Kenneth owned a 2000 GMC Sonoma truck insured under a policy with Illinois Farmers Insurance Company ("Illinois Farmers Policy").
Donovan, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. :: 2021
GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2011) (citing concurring opinions of Justices Saylor, Baer, and Todd), and Safe Auto Insurance Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo, 214 A.3d 1257, 1266 (Pa. 2019)). Therefore, the Donovans maintain that State Farm is 13 The Pennsylvania Association for Justice filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Donovans.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Zachary Shipley, et al
69.  A year after the accident, Shipley sued R & H’s auto insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, for underinsured-motorist (“UIM”) benefits under the Commercial Auto Policy R & H had in effect at the time of the accident (“the Policy”).1 Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, arguing that Shipley was neither occupying nor using
RLI Insurance Company v. ACUITY INSURANCE, No. 1
Id. However, the court did not announce any rule prohibiting the extension of the target-tender doctrine to auto insurance, and, in relying on the above-quoted phrase, RLI does not accurately 6 Case: 1:20-cv-05530 Document #: 36 Filed: 01/04/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:181 represent either the reasoning or the holding of the case.
U.S. Auto Insurance Services, Inc. v. Les Marks Chevrolet
Marks agreed to sell a car to Keith Jones only after verifying through Aranda Insurance ([email protected]) that he had proper insurance. Aranda confirmed that Jones had collateral protection with U.S. Auto and provided a written binder reflecting such coverage. Shortly after Jones received the car, he completely destroyed it in an accident.
Dixie Auto Insurance Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
Safeco Insurance Company of America brought a bill for declaratory relief against Dixie Auto Insurance Company, Gladys Brittain, Barry Wayne Brittain, James L. Brittain, Thelma C. Monroe and Newman F. Monroe in the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Equity Division, praying for a determination of the rights of the parties under
2012 Rhode Island General Laws :: Title 27
§ 27-7-2.1 Uninsured motorist coverage. – (a) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage caused by collision, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or …
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ammar (1981
The insurable interest required for automobile liability insurance arises from the interest an "insured has in the safety of those persons who may maintain, or the freedom from damage to property which may become the basis of, suits against him in case of their injury or destruction." (3 Couch on Insurance, op. cit., supra, § 24:159, p. 273.)
2010 Indiana Code :: TITLE 27. INSURANCE :: :: ARTICLE 1
(1) does not apply to the cancellation or nonrenewal of automobile insurance policies, as restricted under IC 27-7-6; and (2) does not affect requirements applying to: (A) the cancellation of medical malpractice insurance policies under IC 34-18-13-4 …
State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Brumit
State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Brumit Services, Inc. et al, No. 3:2015cv00956 - Document 97 (S.D. Ill. 2017) case opinion from the Southern District of Illinois US Federal District Court
2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 33
(e) Notice to the insured shall not be required by this Code section when a policy is canceled by an insurance premium finance company under a power of attorney contained in an insurance premium finance agreement which has been filed with the insurer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of this title.
Coffman v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. :: 1994 :: Colorado
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo.1984), we invalidated a household exclusion provision in an automobile insurance policy as violative of the public policy embodied in the Colorado Automobile Reparations Act, §§ 10-4-701 to -723, 4 C.R.S. (1973).
2014 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 36. Insurance :: §36-3639
1. Changes in a rate or plan filed with or approved by the Insurance Commissioner or filed pursuant to the Property and Casualty Competitive Loss Cost Rating Act and applicable to an entire class of business; or. 2. Changes based upon …
Kuepers Construction, Inc. v. State Auto Insurance Company
Count One seeks declaratory judgment against both State Auto and the Association, alleging that State Auto breached its obligation to Kuepers under its insurance policies and, as a consequence, State Auto must satisfy the $2,940,875.15 judgment entered pursuant to the Miller-Shugart agreement between Kuepers and the Association.
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hudson :: 1989 :: Supreme Court of
Auto Owners Insurance Co., 392 So. 2d 1201 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981), wherein the Court of Civil Appeals stated that a release will be regarded as subject to the rights of the insurer-subrogee if the tort-feasor has notice or knowledge of the insurer's subrogation rights at the time the release is executed by the insured. In Miller, however, the
State Auto Insurance Co. v. Stuart :: 1985 :: South
In this declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiff State Auto Insurance Company, Nationwide Insurance Company appeals the holding of the trial judge, sitting without a jury, that Nationwide provides primary liability coverage for an automobile involved in a motor vehicle accident and operated by the respondent Ralph A. Pendergrass.
Ryser v. Shelter Mutual Insurance :: 2021 :: Colorado
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 33 P.3d 1265 (Colo. App. 2001), and American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ashour, 2017 COA 67, 410 P.3d 753, on which Ryser relies, do not dictate a different result because these cases did not involve the interplay between the UM/UIM statute and the WCA’s exclusivity and co-employee immunity
2013 Maryland Code :: INSURANCE :: § 27-609
(ii) If an insurer is authorized under this article to cancel, nonrenew, or increase the premiums on a policy of private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance subject to this paragraph because of the claim experience or driving record of one or more but less than all of the individuals insured under the policy, the insurer, instead of
Wild Eggs Holdings, Inc. et al v. State Auto Property
Id. at 1189. On March 18, 2020, Wild Eggs filed an insurance claim with State Auto “for business losses resulting from suspension of its restaurant operations due to actual or alleged exposure to COVID19, a contagious and infectious virus, and resulting adverse public communications or media reports and government orders.” Id. at 1193.
Donnellan v. The Travelers Company, Inc., No. 1
Donnellan received a partial refund of her auto insurance premium— even if that amount is less than she believes is appropriate, these circumstances cannot be characterized as a “substantial” injury. As to countervailing benefits, it appears that several car insurance companies offered premium credits in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
Hirschhorn v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. :: 2012 :: Wisconsin
Joel and Evelyn Hirschhorn filed suit against their homeowners insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, for breach of contract and bad faith, claiming that Auto-Owners was liable for the total loss of their vacation home. The Hirschhorns alleged that their vacation home became uninhabitable and unsaleable as a result of the accumulation of bat guano between the …
2005 North Carolina Code
(5) When an insurance contract is cancelled in accordance with this section, the insurer shall promptly return the gross unearned premiums that are due under the contract to the insurance premium finance company effecting the cancellation, for the benefit of the insured or insureds, no later than 30 days after the effective date of cancellation.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company et al v. Makita USA, Inc
Auto-Owners Insurance Company et al v. Makita USA, Inc. Doc. 79 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER and T-BUCK PROPERTIES, LLC, Involuntary Plaintiff, v. 20-cv-220-wmc MAKITA USA, INC., Defendant.
Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. :: 2016
Adams brought 2 this action against the employer, Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. (Congress Agency or agency). judge dismissed four of his five claims. A Superior Court The case proceeded to discovery on the remaining claim against the agency that alleged negligent failure to safeguard Adams's personal information. The same judge
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Levinson :: 1989
State Auto & Casualty Underwriters Insurance Co., 307 Minn. 173, 175, 239 N.W.2d 445, 447 (1976). In Integrity, the supreme court explained that the better approach is to "allocate respective policy coverages in light of the total policy insuring intent, as determined by the primary policy risks upon which each policy's premiums were based and
Safe Auto v. Berlin (Complete Opinion) :: 2010
Safe Auto Insurance Company Pennsylvania Personal Automobile Policy, at 3 (R.R. at 14a). McKean Hose Company argues that its use of flares at the rescue site constituted their destruction and that its use of other equipment was in fact a loss of use for other purposes during the time frame of the emergency response. Hose Company, at 11-12.
Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto. Club
The offer also required that Hedayati’s attorney receive a “true and correct copy of the Declaration Page and Insurance Policy for the underlying Auto Club policy that is the subject of this settlement.” The offer further required the insured driver to attest that the “total amount of [his] assets and holdings is less than $200,000.00.”
ESTATE OF JOHN. F. MUNSTERMAN, ET AL. Vs. UNITRIN AUTO
Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co., 19-760 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/2/19), __ So.3d __. This matter proceeded to trial on December 11 and 19, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Estate and against Unitrin for $20,868.00, plus legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all court costs.
Workmen's Auto Insurance Company v. Chubb Customer Center
Workmen's Auto Insurance v. Chubb Customer Center IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---- Workmen's Auto Insurance Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Chubb Customer Center, Inc., dba Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Defendant and Appellee. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 981413-CA F I L E D