Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Justice Sotomayor, the insurance companies' friend

"Has she ever ruled in favor of a policyholder?" asks Philadelphia insurance lawyer Randy Maniloff after searching Sotomayor's decisions.

Justice Sotomayor, the insurance companies' friend


"Insurance coverage issues never get to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a greater chance of me playing in the NBA than the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a pollution exclusion case," insurance lawyer Randy Maniloff of Philadelphia's White and Williams LLP tells me in a note. (He's 5'4").

So, "for fun only," Maniloff went digging through Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's "lengthy" decision record " on some "popular coverage issues" -- and found "Judge Sotomayor has been very, very insurer-friendly during her time on the bench...

"Has she ever ruled in favor of a policyholder? She has, of course, but her record reflects that her decisions have overwhelmingly been in favor of insurers. I do not have a precise tally of wins and losses... But it's insurers by a landslide." Excerpts from Maniloff's list: 

Greenidge v. Allstate Ins. Co., (2d. Cir. 2004) “The law of bad faith is not intended to reduce the incentives of insured parties to protect their own interests... The Greenidges had ample opportunity to protect their own interests...  The Greenidges’ failure to do so does not convert Allstate's refusal to accept... plaintiffs’ settlement offer into a display ‘of recklessness on the part of the insurer.’"
Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (2d. Cir. 2001) “The majority holds that even when an insurance policy exclusion unambiguously denies coverage, an insurer will need to defend a suit whenever it is ‘uncertain’ that this Court would have concluded that the policy exclusion was unambiguous I find no such requirement in New York law, I respectfully dissent...”  
A.M. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 2000  (2d. Cir. 2000)  "The Abuse Exclusions in this case do not, on their face, require that the insured have acted intentionally... Given that a separate provision of each policy expressly excludes coverage for injury ‘which is expected or intended’ by the insured, reading an intent requirement into the ‘Abuse Exclusions’ as well would render the latter provisions all but superfluous."
Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Chios Constr. Corp., 1996  (S.D.N.Y.)  "There is not even a metaphysical possibility that the Doctor injury claim is covered.... (Though) the Chios employee on site, states that ‘no subcontractor was permitted to work at any of the job sites without Chios supervision,’ this statement does not magically transform.... an independent contractor into a Chios employee or agent."
Maniloff concludes, "And the list could go on and on. But don’t look for any of them during the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearings."
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

PhillyDeals posts drafts, transcripts and updates of Joseph N. DiStefano's columns and stories about Philly-area business, which he's been writing since 1989.

DiStefano studied economics, history and a little engineering at Penn and taught writing at St. Joseph's. He has written thousands of columns and articles for the Inquirer, Bloomberg and other media, wrote the book Comcasted, and raised six children with his wife, who is a saint.

Reach Joseph N. at JoeD@phillynews.com, distefano251@gmail.com, 215.854.5194 or 302.652.2004.

Reach Joseph N. at JoeD@phillynews.com or 215 854 5194.

Joseph N. DiStefano
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter