Scott Wing and Howard Randell were granted summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan resulting in the recovery of $1,000,000.00 in defense and indemnity payments on behalf of their insurer client. The underlying wrongful death litigation arose out of a traffic accident allegedly caused by a motor carrier who in turn, was retained to deliver cargo by the insured-broker. The insured-broker tendered its defense of the suit to its logistics liability insurer, who accepted the defense, as well as its general liability (GL) insurer, who declined to defend and took no further action. After the logistics insurer defended the case and exhausted its $2,000,000,00 policy limit to settle the insured’s liability, LEF filed a Complaint for Equitable Contribution against the GL insurer. On Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court agreed with LEF’s contention that the GL insurer owed a duty to defend under its “non-owned auto” endorsement and breached that duty when it declined the tender without further action. As such, the Court held that the GL insurer was liable for its pro rata share of the defense and indemnity payments, as well as pre-judgment interest under the relevant Michigan statute.
Robert Ostojic recently recovered more than $150,000 on behalf of his client, a former Resident of an assisted-living Facility located in the Chicagoland area. Prior to moving in, Resident provided the Facility access to her life-savings account pursuant to the residency contract. In November of 2020, a fire originated in Resident’s living unit. The Resident acknowledged that she accidentally left a box on top of a stove, causing the fire. Rather than make an insurance claim for the damages, the Facility elected to pay for the damages from Resident’s life-savings account. Prior to suit, Robert demanded that the Facility return the Resident’s money, but the Facility refused and in turn, demanded almost $50,000 in attorney’s fees. At trial, Robert prevailed on all claims, convincing the Judge that Facility’s withdrawal was contrary to Illinois Supreme Court precedent and that Resident had an immediate right to the return of her money. The Judge also rejected Facility’s claims for attorney’s fees.
Robert Ostojic obtained a trial verdict for his client, a house guest, after a week-long trial. In 2016, Guest was visiting his son and daughter-in-law for Thanksgiving. A fire originated near the east wall of the attached garage, causing significant damages. Guest admitted to the disposal of pipe ashes at the area of fire origin. Homeowner’s insurer contended that the fire was caused by Guest’s negligent disposal of smoking material (i.e. pipe ashes) outside the rear of the garage, near the point or origin. At trial, Robert utilized NFPA 921 to successfully convince the jury that the insurer failed to prove the cause of the fire. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the client.
LEF Partner, Roland Keske, will be speaking at the Property & Liability Resource Bureau’s (PLRB) Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida March 19-22, 2023. He will be co-presenting with insurance industry expert, Karen Tucker, on “Analysis of Claims Arising From Autonomous Vehicles.” Through its Annual Conference and other events, the PLRB continues in its mission to promote education and new and beneficial developments within the property and casualty insurance industry. The PLRB works to disseminate information on property and liability issues among its members and within the insurance industry. We look forward to seeing you at the conference and elsewhere!
Robert Ostojic recently recovered more than $150,000 on behalf of his client, a former Resident of an assisted-living Facility, located in the Chicagoland area. Prior to moving in, Resident provided the Facility access to her life-savings account pursuant to the residency contract. In November of 2020, a fire originated in Resident’s living unit. The Resident acknowledged that she accidentally left a box on top of a stove, causing the fire. Rather than make an insurance claim for the damages, the Facility elected to pay for the damages from Resident’s life-savings account. Prior to suit, Robert demanded that the Facility return the Resident’s money, but the Facility refused and in turn, demanded almost $50,000 in attorney’s fees. At trial, Robert prevailed on all claims, convincing the Judge that Facility’s withdrawal was contrary to Illinois Supreme Court precedent and that Resident had an immediate right to the return of her money. The Judge also rejected Facility’s claims for attorney’s fees.
