(Summary Judgment In Favor Of Insurer Affirmed As Insureds Failed To Show Misrepresentation Regarding The Amount Of Coverage Afforded For Homes Destroyed By Wildfire)

(Insureds Were Not Entitled To Independent Counsel For Defense Of Lawsuit Based On Insurer’s Reservations Regarding Excess Exposure And Punitive Damages)

(Based On Idaho Insurance Interpretation Rules, Reversal Of Summary Judgment For One Insurer Required, But Not The Other Insurer)

(Judgment In Favor Of Insurer In Connection With Bad Faith Lawsuit Reversed Based On Questions Of Fact Related To Failure To Communicate Settlement Offer Terms To Insured And Unreasonable Claims Handling Conduct)

(Insurer Subrogation Action Against Subcontractors Required Jury Trial To Determine Damages And Such Damages Were Properly Allocated to Breaching Subcontractors On A Several Basis)

Many states allow insurers to recover case costs once a court determines that they had no duty to defend a policy holder, but only where certain conditions are met. In a recent 4-3 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court held that where an insurer pays to defend a policyholder against a lawsuit and that defense is ultimately not owed, the insurer is entitled to reimbursement of its defense costs, even where the insurance policy contains no reservation of rights.

Arizona courts continue to address the interplay between the parties’ competing duties, such as an insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer’s duty to indemnify, and the insured’s duty to cooperate. Where an insurer seeks a reservation of rights, Arizona courts reason that these duties paint an insured into a corner where they should be able to settle third-party claims.

New Mexico courts continue to require insurance companies to afford insureds a fair opportunity to consider the actual cost of UM/UIM coverage by reforming policies that do not accurately reflect premium costs corresponding to available levels of UM/UIM coverage.