.

Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers

Delaware Superior Court Decision Imparts Lessons for Insurance Agents and Brokers Regarding Policy Exclusions and Language

Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers – November 2024

November 1, 2024

In June 2024, the Delaware Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment, requiring an insurance company to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in regard to underlying litigation. In doing so, the court issued a coverage decision demonstrating the importance that a policy be clear and unambiguous to avoid the contract language being construed against the insurance company. The decision also highlights the need for agents and brokers to consider the industry their clients are in and the services they offer in order to understand the reasonable expectations of those insurers when providing insurance liability policies.

In Noble Eagle Sales, LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, et al., 2024 WL 2830922 (Del. Super. Ct. 2024), Noble Eagle, the insured, operated a shooting range where a patron used one of its guns to commit suicide. The decedent’s family and estate subsequently sued Noble Eagle, which had requested coverage for the lawsuit under their insurance policy. The insurance company denied coverage, citing an exclusion within the policy. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, seeking a decision from the court on whether coverage applied.

The argument centered on an exclusion found within the policy excluding coverage for bodily injuries caused by sporting equipment rented out by Noble Eagle. Noble Eagle argued that the exclusion did not clearly define sporting equipment, therefore, making the exclusion ambiguous as to whether a firearm fell within the exclusion. The insurance company argued the exclusion’s plain meaning clearly conveyed what was excluded and, thus, was not ambiguous and that without any ambiguity, the exclusion must be applied in this case. 

The court determined that the term “sporting equipment” was ambiguous and the exclusion could not be enforced in this case. In doing so, the court looked to the standard for insurance contract interpretation. 

The “interpretation of a contract must rely on a reading of all pertinent provisions of the policy as a whole, and not on any single passage in isolation.” Id. citing O’Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281, 287 (Del. 2001). Clear and unambiguous contract terms are given their plain meaning. Id. citing Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1195 (Del. 1992). Ambiguity exists when the contract term is reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more meanings. Id. “When ambiguity does exist, ‘the language of an insurance contract [must] be construed most strongly against the insurance company that drafted it.’” Id. In order to avoid its duty to defend its insured, an insurer must demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint are solely and entirely within specific and unambiguous exclusions from coverage. Id. citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co., 1992 WL 22690, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992).

The court first addressed whether the decedent had rented the firearm. They determined the transaction unquestionably fit into the definition of “rented out” and that Noble Eagle’s decision to not charge the decedent’s estate for the rental does not transform the transaction. 

In turning to the definition of “sporting equipment” in the exclusion, the court looked to the definitions in the policy, and “sporting equipment” was not defined. Noble Eagle argued that reasonable minds could differ as to when a firearm qualifies as “sporting equipment.” The insurance company argued Noble Eagle only rented out “guns, protective eyewear, and earplugs” and that if firearms are not “sporting equipment,” the exclusion is meaningless.

The court determined that the core question it must answer hinged on whether firearms are always, definitionally, sporting equipment. The court applied Delaware decisional law and determined the exclusion could only be enforced if the sole reasonable interpretation of “sporting equipment” encompassed all of the firearms Noble Eagle rented out, regardless of the purpose for which the customer rents the firearm. The court then looked to the Merriam-Webster definition of firearm and sporting equipment. Turning to the policy language, the court determined there was more than one reasonable interpretation as to whether sporting equipment always included firearms. 

The court cannot determine from the plain language of the policy where to draw the line between firearms that can be sporting equipment, and firearms that are always sporting equipment. MUSIC, as the insurer, stood as the party best positioned to make that delineation when drafting the Policy. MUSIC’s failure to do so renders the Rental Exclusion’s application to firearm rentals ambiguous.

Id. The court further found ambiguity regarding what shooting activities would be considered sports under the policy, as firearms could be rented for either shooting practice or testing out a firearm for purchase, among others.

In finding ambiguity, the court construed the exclusion most strongly against the insurance company. The court was unable to find that all firearms were unequivocally and definitionally “sporting equipment.” According to the court, the insurance company failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the exclusion barred coverage in this case. Further, the court found the insurance company was aware, at the time of issuing the policy, that Noble Eagle rented firearms. Therefore, Noble Eagle had a reasonable expectation, as a shooting range that paid $14,000 for a liability policy, that they would have coverage in place for liability involving firearms. The court also took into consideration that the policy did define some definition of “sporting equipment,” as it explicitly referenced golf and tennis equipment. Finally, the court noted that the litigation highlighted the benefit to the insurance company of the ambiguity in the policy exclusion and the requirement under Delaware law to construe the policy against the insurer.

This case demonstrates the importance that a policy—including its exclusions—be clear and unambiguous. Further, agents and brokers must take into consideration the type of business and services being provided by an insurer, the reasonable expectations of those insurers in obtaining liability policies, and the implications of any potential exclusions that may apply.  

 

Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers, November 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tgventura@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case