The Constitution of the United States Prohibits Legislation Altering the Terms of Insurance Contracts to Force Provision of Coverage or Nullifications of Exclusions Under Commercial Policies – It’s a Two-Way Street – Cannot Impair the Obligation and Cannot Enlarge a Remedy or Create a Contractual Right that Would Not Otherwise Exist Under the State of the Terms of the Contract Before Legislative Alteration

Can a state legislature force an insurer to cover a loss / risk where it is either not covered by the plain terms of the policy’s coverage provisions, or excluded by the policy’s exclusions and/or endorsements without violating the prohibition found in the United States Constitution against impairment of the obligations of contracts? Article I, [...]

Court of Appeals Rules Disagreement Over the Terms of Settlement Contract Not an Ambiguity Over What Terms Actually Mean

This is an interesting, if not unsurprising, case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's finding concerning what the terms of a settlement contract were in a dispute over their meaning. The plaintiff and the defendant's insured entered into a settlement agreement in which the plaintiff repaid the insurer an amount to [...]