Free Newsletter
INSURANCE Umbrella Coverage; Duty to Defend; Vehicle Repossession
cassiejohnson//December 18, 2015
Where a used car dealership sought coverage for counterclaims brought by car buyers whose vehicle was repossessed, and the insurer refused, arguing that allegedly deficient notices were not wrongful repossession as that term was used in the policy and stating that the dealership was only entitled to coverage under a customer complaint defense provision, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer is affirmed because the court properly found that “repossession” does not encompass the procedures required by statute for the disposal of collateral, so umbrella coverage was not available and the insurer did not have a duty to defend.
Judgment is affirmed.
14-3411 Wolfe Automotive Group, LLC v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Beam, J.
Top News
- Melodie Rose named president at Fredrikson
- Supreme Court lawyers have rituals of their own
- Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights
- Defining ‘and’ in sentencing statute falls to Supreme Court
- Hashtag rates higher libel protection
- Court: Performance issues, not bias, prompted union to fire organizer
- Robot milker case yields $122M
- 2023 Up & Coming Attorneys
Expert Testimony
- Briefly: A chat with Supreme Court Commissioner Tim Droske
- Perspectives: Oral arguments at high court stir lively debates
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
