(Insurer Not Obligated to Compensate Insured for Lost Resale Value Upon Election to Repair Vehicle After Accident) 

(Court of Appeals Certifies Question Regarding Whether a Claim for Negligent Supervision Constitutes an “Occurrence” as Defined in CGL Policies)

(Insurer’s Refusal to Agree to Clause in Release Preserving Claimants’ Right to Restitution Constituted Bad Faith Entitling Third Party Claimants to Excess Judgment)

(Excess Carrier May Maintain Claim for Equitable Subrogation Notwithstanding the Absence of a Judgment in Excess of Primary Policy Limits)

(Question of Fact Existed Relative to Payment of Insurance Benefits Under First Party Property Damage Coverage Afforded by Homeowners Policy, However Claims for Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Were Barred by the Genuine Dispute Doctrine)

Reminiscent of the fable of the Elephant and the Blind Men, the United States Supreme Court’s splendidly opaque May 16, 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins has left counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants arguing that the decision supports their view of the requirement of “concrete and particularized” injury necessary to support Article III standing in Federal courts.