Settlement Credit
California Court of Appeal Finds No Sufficient Time to Review Settlement Requirement Under Blue Ridge PDF Print
Settlement Credit
Written by CBM   
Friday, 22 April 2011 14:17

In American Modern Home Insurance Company v. Fahmian (Cal. Ct. App. April 8, 2011) G042799, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an insurer may obtain reimbursement for a settlement from an insured when it is determined the underlying claim is not covered by the policy, provided the insurer follows the three part test laid out in Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen, 25 Cal. 4th 489 (2001), but there is no requirement that to receive reimbursement the insurer must provide the insured with "sufficient time" to review the settlement advisement letter. 

Attachments:
 American Modern Home case[ ]138 Kb
Read more...
 
Commercial Union and London Seek Review of Ohio Court of Appeals Settlement Credit Decision PDF Print
Settlement Credit
Written by Gretchen Ramos   
Saturday, 16 August 2008 07:54
Read more...
 
Insurers Denied Setoff for Other Excess Insurers' Settlements PDF Print
Settlement Credit
Written by Robert Binion   
Monday, 14 July 2008 16:00

On June 30, 2008, in Goodrich Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2581579 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. June 30, 2008), the Court of Appeals of Ohio (Ninth District) affirmed a jury's decision that Commercial Union and certain London Market Insurers (collectively "CU"), were not entitled to an setoff for the settlement amounts paid by other excess insurers because they failed to demonstrate the other insurers' settlements were for the "same damages" as Goodrich recovered against CU.

Read more...
 
CA Case Says Primary's Less-Than-Limits Settlement Does Not Obligate Excess Insurer PDF Print
Settlement Credit
Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:00

In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 2008 WL 763483 (Cal. Ct. App. March 25, 2008), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held, based on the language of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters) excess directors and officers (D&O) policy, that Underwriters' coverage obligation did not arise beacuse the primary insurer neither paid its full limit of liability nor had it become legally obligated to pay the full amount of its limit in connection with a settlement between it and the policyholder.

Attachments:
 Qualcomm v. Underwriters[ ]55 Kb
Read more...