Is an insurer exposed to bad faith if it relies upon its own mistake to withhold payment under the policy?  The court answered yes in Lundy Enterprises, LLC v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 06-3509, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121295 (E.D. La. Dec. 30, 2009).

   Wausau provided commercial property coverage for the insured's

   The insured's home was extensively damaged by wind and rain resulting from Hurricane Katrina.   See Belonga v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., No. 09-476, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118643 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2009).  When purchased in 2003, the home was appraised at $114,000.  An adjuster addressing the insured's flood claim reported, however, the home had

   If the insurer pays for adjusted flood damage, can the insured sue for additional coverage when no proof of loss is filed?  Following its own precedent, the Fifth Circuit determined no coverage was due above the adjusted amount when the insured failed to file a proof of loss ("POL").  See Talbott v. Fidelity Nat. Ins. Co.

   In an opinion primarily concerned with the intricacies of pleading under the False Claims Act, the Louisiana federal district court addressed allegations that insurers shifted Katrina claims from homeowners' to flood policies.  See United States ex rel. Branch Consultants, L.L.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06-4091, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101155 (E.D. La. Oct. 19

   Fourteen months after Hurricane Ike hit the Gulf coastline of Texas, the initial onslaught of litigation is starting to surface in reported decisions.  Our first post of undoubtedly many Hurricane Ike cases to come addresses a motion for remand after a coverage dispute was removed to federal court.  See Lakewood Chiropractic Clinic v. Travelers Lloyds Ins.

   The insured Condominium Association had primary and excess coverage.  See El-Ad Residences at Miramar Condo. Assoc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92216 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2009).  Significant property damage was caused by Hurricane Wilma.  The insured alleged that three years after the hurricane, the insurers failed to adjust

   When plaintiff's husband was killed in a helicopter accident while being transported to work in the Gulf of Mexico, the insurer paid $40,000 under the "Other Accident" provision of the accident insurance policy instead of $150,000 under the "Common-Carrier Accidents" provision.  See Smith v. American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, No. 08-31032

   Having now read the full Corban decision, I am impressed with the clarity of the analysis set forth in the opinion.  See Corban v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 2009 Miss LEXIS 481 (Miss. Sup. Ct. Oct. 8, 2009).  The Mississippi Supreme Court carefully considered the facts, offered a common sense analysis to the