From time to time, we’ll write about insurance coverage practitioners. This month’s piece is a question-and-answer-style between Ian Goodman, a member of the Insurance Coverage Section Executive Committee and an attorney at Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP, and Anna Mallon, a partner at Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP. 

This article addresses the liability of autonomous vehicle by examining products liability through the use of four scenarios: the distracted driver; the diminished capabilities driver; the disabled driver; and the attentive driver.

Under Indiana law, it is well established that a landlord and tenant may waive their rights to sue each other for any damages covered by insurance. But even if the landlord and tenant do not explicitly waive those rights in the lease, a landlord’s insurer is not necessarily entitled to pursue a subrogation claim against a negligent tenant.

In Grange Mutual Casualty Company v. Estate of Stephen Stetz, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), the court found—under Ohio law—that Stephen Stetz (who tragically died after being struck by an uninsured motorist) qualified for benefits under his parents’ auto policy as a “family member” because his “principal residence” remained at his parent’s house in Ohio even though he had been living and working in Chicago for over a year.

Under these circumstances, the policyholder should be afforded the right to choose the defense attorney to represent the policyholder’s interests in the underlying lawsuit or claim.

The Tucker Act cannot be read to waive sovereign immunity for a general liability insurer that brings suit as an equitable subrogee of a prime contractor, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit instructed.

This case from a federal court in Missouri provides guidance that all insurance practitioners should be aware of. Specifically, the court addresses what a proper reservation of rights letter issued my an insueance company should contain.

The 7th Circuit’s opinion, which applied Indiana law, is noteworthy for its discussion of the fact-sensitive inquiry of what constitutes an insured’s residence.

In Pelliccia v. Anthem Ins. Companies, Inc., 2018 WL 283152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), a doctor purchased a personal health insurance policy to cover him and his wife. The policy stated coverage would terminate if he failed to pay the monthly premium within the grace period.

The Earl v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. case is a continuation of a case that has provided insurance practitioners with multiple, substantive insurance law citations. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Earl, 33 N.E. 3d 337, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court did not err when it admitted as evidence, the amount of available uninsured motorist policy limits. On remand, this case has provided additional guidance to insurance practitioners in a recent decision.