Claims And Issues

THE "AFFORDABLE Catholic CARE ACT" PERCEPTION OF CONTRACEPTION.

   Six of the sitting Justices on the United States Supreme Court are Catholic.  Catholic Church doctrine holds that artificial means of contraception are forbidden.  The Supreme Court has on its docket of pending cases several that present the question of whether employers and corporations which oppose contraception on religious grounds (a corporation is a person, my friend, and sometimes a person has religious beliefs), must provide a group health insurance plan or policy which includes coverage for women who elect to use artificial means of contraception.

   So far as is known, none of the Catholic Justices has recused himself or herself in any of the cases presenting these issues.

   If or as many people have no doubt, when at least 5 of the Catholic Justices vote against artificial contraception in health insurance, and if none of the 5 has recused himself, what if any legitimacy is their decision expected to carry?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

   

Related articles

They Should Be Ashamed, and Notre Dame, Revisited.

More to Come: Present, Future Costs; Future Contraception and Catholics.

WASHINGTON STATE LEADS THE DEFENSE: CONCEIVABLE COVERAGE MEANS DEFEND.

  Washington State leads the way in determining a duty to defend, and thus in determining whether denial of a defense was wrongful.    See, e.g., United Serv's Auto. Ass'n v. Speed, 317 P.3d 532, ¶ 15, at 538 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 2 January 28, 2014) (where coverage is conceivable for the claim(s)s pled in the complaint against the insured, there is a duty to defend; actual coverage is required for the duty to settle or indemnify); Grange Ins. Ass'n v. Roberts, 177 Wash. App. 1021, 2013 WL 5806663 *4 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 October 28, 2013)(same).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Related articles

Lawyer's Ethical Rules Trump Professional Liability Policy "Voluntary Payments" Provision.

"ADDITIONAL INSURED," Priorities of Coverage Issues: General's Carrier vs. Subcontractor's Carrier ...

LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES, SETTLEMENT, AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES.

   "In truth, comparison of liability insurers negotiating settlement of claims against their policyholders and other insureds, with other kinds of fiduciaries, is not a comparison of twins.  Fiduciary law in general has been plagued with confusion due to unarticulated premises and unexplained analogies between different fiduciaries with differing potentials for abuse of their particular fiduciary powers.  The liability insurer is a fiduciary in its own right."  Dennis J. Wall, "Fiduciary in Settlement and The American Law Institute's Principles of Liability Insurance Law / Refusing the Shackles of 'Reasonable' Summary Judgments," 36 Ins. Lit. Rptr. 93, 100 (2014)  (© 2014 by Thomson Reuters West).

 

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works or to Thomson Reuters West works in any of the above.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Related articles

Allocation, Indemnity, Defense Insurance Coverage Issues: Part Two.

The American Law Institute, Liablity Insurance Principles, Fiduciary Settlement.

Actuaries Aren't Fiduciaries

WHEN DEFENSE IS SEPARATE FROM INDEMNITY.

    In general terms, it is not necessarily bad faith for a liability insurance carrier to terminate the defense of its insured following its payment of policy limits, when the insurance policy allows.  In Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Peninsula Logistics, Inc., 2014 WL 1416339 *2 & n.1 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2014)(Presnell, J.), the issue of whether the insurance contract allowed for termination of a defense upon payment of policy limits was held separate from the issue of whether the liability carrier terminated the defense in bad faith, and a declaratory relief action was allowed to proceed on the duty to defend issues whether or not a claim of bad faith could or would be filed.

 

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Related articles

Allocation, Indemnity, Defense Insurance Coverage Issues: Part Two.

Statute of Limitations on Wrongful Refusal to Defend.

NO INSURER REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS FROM POLICYHOLDER: WASHINGTON STATE.

   There is no cause of action for reimbursement of defense costs by an insurance company against its insured in WashingtonState.  National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp., 176 Wash. 2d 872, 297 P.3d 688 (2013).  "[C]ontrary dicta" was "disaffirmed" by the Washington Supreme Court.  National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp., 176 Wash. 2d 872, 887 n.2, 297 P.3d 688, 695 n.2 (2013).   Accord, United Services Automobile Association v. Speed, 317 P.3d 532, ¶ 16, at 538 (Wash. Ct. App., Div. 2, 2014).

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Related articles

Late Notice Coverage Defense: Recent Florida Cases, New York Law.

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR EXPLODING OIL ON RAILROAD CARS.

          The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Corporations are certainly "persons" according to five people in Washington, D.C. who judge such things on the Supreme Court.

          Exploding oil kills people and destroys property just like guns in the wrong hands.

          Therefore corporations have a right to own and use railroad cars bearing exploding oil.

          The Constitution aside, what are the "Commercial General Liability" insurance issues?  What are the liability insurance issues under any and all insurance policies that might be involved?

          Assume that railroad cars bearing exploding oil is going to be an accomplished fact.  Many reports over the past few years seem to provide evidence in support.

          If that is going to happen, can the price of exercising that right or privilege, whether under the Constitution or otherwise, be to pay for insurance coverage in amounts that will provide coverage for the injured people and damaged property they leave in their wake?

The National Transportation Safety Board held a two-day forum on April 22 and 23, 2014 on safety issues arising from rail transportation of the currently highly flammable, explosive version of crude oil.  Here are links to the NTSB video presentations on the web of that forum: here for the April 22, 2014 session, at ntsb.capitolconnection.org/042214/ntsb_archive_wmv.htm, and here for the session held on April 23, 2014, at ntsb.capitolconnection.org/042314/ntsb_archive_wmv.htm.

  

 © 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.