Recent Posts
Follow Us
twittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube
The Legal Stuff
BT Policyholder Protection Blog
0 0

16 Apr 2015 Minnesota Courts Address Statutory Procedures for Claims Against Insurance Companies – Part 2 of 2

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued opinions concerning separate statutory requirements for maintaining actions against insurance companies. In the first, the Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s liability insurer could be added as a garnishee to the underlying lawsuit under Minnesota’s garnishment statute. Here, we discuss the second, in which the Supreme Court clarified when service of process on a nonresident insurer served under Minnesota’s alternative service of process statute is deemed to be “made” for purposes of applying a limitations period. Click here to read Part 1 of this post.   Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Ins. Co., No. A13-1302, 2015 WL 1545281 (Minn. April 8, 2015) For limitations purposes, an action against a nonresident insurer…

READ MORE
0 0

05 Jan 2015 Color Match Arrives (Again) in Minnesota

Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing an insurer’s obligation to match replacement materials after homes suffered storm damage. The opinion in Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, –N.W.2d–, No. A13-0124, 2014 WL 7156914 (Minn. Dec. 17, 2014) stemmed from a hail storm in October 2011 that damaged buildings in the Cedar Bluff townhome neighborhood.   Cedar Buff sought coverage for complete replacement of the buildings’ siding. However, American Family (AmFam) took the position that the policy only required replacement of the individual panels actually damaged by the storm, even though the replacement panels would be slightly darker or lighter than the original panels. The district court granted summary judgment to AmFam, finding that the policy…

READ MORE
0 0

29 Apr 2014 Indiana Courts Wrestle with “Work” v. “No-Work” Distinction in Waiver of Subrogation Cases

When confronted with the argument that a party has waived its claims under an AIA standard waiver of subrogation provision, Indiana has traditionally applied a “Work” vs. ”No-Work” distinction when evaluating whether a project owner has waived its claims. Despite prior case law applying this distinction, on Feb. 14, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in Bd. of Comm’rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson v. Teton Corp., 3 N.E.3d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), held that a work vs. no-work distinction should not apply. Because the project owner failed to secure the insurance required under the contract, failed to give notice to the general contractor of the decision not to secure the insurance, and waived its subrogation claims, the court held the owner breached the…

READ MORE