 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
C.P. v. Allstate Insurance Company3/3/2000
ployee of the insurer, and Sauer, which involved an independent adjuster, establish that an insurer's adjusters personally owe duties to an insured under a liability policy to adjust (investigate and resolve) claims against the insured. O.K. Lumber and Collins confirm that proposition.
Does it matter that Norton was Allstate's salaried employee? Continental broadly indicates that it does not.
The certification order suggests that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766C (1979) might convince us to draw a distinction between salaried employees and independent adjusters. Section 766C bars recovery for nonphysical harm resulting from interference with contract. Because the parties' briefs have not addressed the Restatement issue, we decline to address § 766C here.
Thus, existing Alaska law answers the first question. The answer is "yes": the insurer's salaried insurance adjuster owes the insureds the described duty of care.
C. Does the Insurance Policy Cover Claims that the Homeowners Negligently Failed to Prevent a Child from Being Harmed by Criminal or Intentional Acts?
The second certified question asks:
Does a homeowner's liability insurance policy that provides coverage against "accidental" injuries and excludes coverage for intentional and criminal acts (whether or not prosecuted), treats the acts of one insured as the acts of all insureds, and promises to defend the homeowner against suits for "covered damages" even if the allegations are groundless, false or fraudulent, obligate the insurer to defend and indemnify an insured homeowner who is sued for (1) negligent supervision of an adult son who resides on the premises and allegedly sexually assaulted a young guest of his daughter's (the homeowner's granddaughter) on the insured premises, (2) negligent failure to warn the parents of the injured child that the adult son would be left in charge of the premises during an extended absence by the homeowners, and (3) negligent failure to protect a visitor lawfully on the premises from foreseeable criminal activity, i.e., a sexual assault by a resident?
Well-known principles of insurance contract interpretation govern our analysis. The liability of an insurer is generally determined by the terms of the policy it has issued. Where an insurance company by plain language limits the coverage of its policy, we recognize that restriction. But because an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, we construe it to give effect to the insured's reasonable expectations. In other words, " he objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms of insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations."
Construction of an insurance policy under the principle of reasonable expectations does not depend on a prior determination of policy ambiguity. But where a clause in an insurance policy is ambiguous in the sense that it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, we accept the interpretation that most favors the insured.
In order to determine the reasonable expectations of the parties, we look to the language of the disputed policy provisions, the language of other provisions of the insurance policy, relevant extrinsic evidence, and case law interpreting similar provisions. We construe grants of coverage broadly and interpret exclusions narrowly.
1. Coverage for "accident"
The family liability coverage part of Allstate's policy covered "an insured person" against liability claims for "bodily injury . . . arising from an accident." It provides: "S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|