|
IV. PIP BENEFITS: CHIROPRACTOR MUST SUBMIT MEDICAL BILLS TO PATIENT'S HEALTH INSURER ONCE $2,000.00 OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED AND PAID UNDER THE PATIENT'S PIP COVERAGE |
|
In Sabino Chiropractic Office, Inc. v. Arbella Mutual Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5115251 (Mass. App. Div. 2008), the Massachusetts Appellate Division, District Court Department, Northern District, held that the district court's grant of summary judgment was appropriate as there was no evidence that the plaintiff, a chiropractic office asserting the contractual rights of the defendant's insured, followed the procedure outlined in Mejia v. American Cas. Co., 55 Mass. App. Ct. 461 (2002).
Read On... |
|
V. MASSACHUSETTS CO-INSURED DOCTRINE APPLIED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS |
In Federal Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4873959 (D. Mass. 2008), the U.S District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the plaintiff's subrogation claim was barred by operation of the "implied co-insured doctrine."
Read On... |
|
VI. NEW HAMPSHIRE - BMC ATTORNEY SECURES MOTION TO DISMISS IN CASE INVOLVING DISPUTE OF PAYMENT OF MEDICAL LIENS FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT |
BMC attorney Thomas Fay recently succeeded in securing a motion to dismiss in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. The plaintiff had sued an automobile insurer following a breakdown in the settlement negotiations of the plaintiff's injury claim against the insured driver.
Read On... |
|
VII. NEW HAMPSHIRE - ANTI-CONCURRENT CAUSATION CLAUSE FOUND ENFORCEABLE PRECLUDING COVERAGE FOR FLOOD DAMAGE |
In Amherst Country Club v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company, 561 F.Supp.2d 138 (D. N.H. 2008), the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire recently held that an "anti-concurrent causation" clause ("ACC") found in a property policy was enforceable precluding coverage for flood damage caused at the Amherst Country Club. An ACC is a provision in many property policies which generally excludes coverage for any loss where any portion of the loss is caused, directly or indirectly, by an excluded cause.
|
| VIII. RHODE ISLAND - DISCOVERY: REPORT PREPARED BY INSURER'S AGENT DURING COVERAGE INVESTIGATION NOT PROTECTED AS WORK PRODUCT |
| In Midler v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4671003 (D. R.I. 2008), the United States District Court, District of Rhode Island held that an engineering report prepared by an insurer's agent in the course of a coverage investigation was not protected work product.
|