Latest News

15 Oct, 2015

ITS ANOTHER WHOPPER!! “BIG FISH” RULING ON INSURANCE FROM 8TH CIRCUIT!

2018-04-23T20:59:42-05:00October 15th, 2015|Fire, Homeowner's policy, Midwest Insurance Law Guide|

 YOU HAD BETTER READ THAT INSURANCE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU SIGN IT.  YES,  SIREE.  BUT NOT ALWAYS.  This point was brought home by the 8th Circuit in the case of Metropolitan Prop. and Cas. Ins. v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933 (2015).   There, Calvin's house burnt down.  He collected insurance and rebuilt on the same land.  When the second house was finished, he sought coverage from his original insurer, State Farm.  The agent told [...]

20 Feb, 2014

UNDERAGE HOME DRINKING + ASSAULT = NO PARENTAL COVERAGE

2018-04-23T20:59:43-05:00February 20th, 2014|Homeowner's policy, Midwest Insurance Law Guide|

BOTTOM LINE: Parents Beware! If your child intended to throw an underage party and someone got hurt, there is no insurance coverage.This is a parent's nightmare.  As the mother of five children who are very close in age, I had many worries about teenage drinking parties.  Four were teens at the same time; all were in high school together.  And as a mother with a law degree, in addition to a specialty practice in insurance coverage, the [...]

14 Feb, 2014

VALENTINE’S DAY LESSON FOR LOVERS

2018-04-23T20:59:43-05:00February 14th, 2014|Homeowner's policy, Midwest Insurance Law Guide|

  DOES INSURANCE COVER THE "THEFT" OF AN ENGAGEMENT RING  - WHEN A GIRLFRIEND REFUSES TO RETURN IT?  BOTTOM LINE:  NO.  BUT YOU SHOULD NOT CALL YOUR GIRLFRIEND A HOOKER.   It is Valentine's Day, my friends, so let's turn to the fickle issues of love and property for today's lesson on insurance coverage.  Why do we ever intertwine the two?  One is irrational, illogical, ephemeral and incapable of accurate definition or description.  (That would be love, [...]

21 Jan, 2014

THEFT COVERAGE UNDER HOMEOWNER’S POLICY: Excluded or Included?

2018-04-23T20:59:43-05:00January 21st, 2014|Homeowner's policy, Insurance contract, Midwest Insurance Law Guide|

THE BOTTOM LINE:   If a specific peril's policy does not define theft, a court will use a broad definition that may ultimately allow coverage.    In a recent case, Peterson v. Homesite Indemnity Co., 287 Neb. 48 (Dec. 20, 2013),  the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed a standard coverage clause on theft.  The policyholder had hired a moving company to transport his household goods to Florida.   The cost of the move was based upon the weight [...]