Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When it was sued by its former president and CEO, the Equine Assisted Growth and Learning Association (EAGALA) requested coverage for the costs of its defense from its insurance carrier, Carolina Casualty. Carolina Casualty denied coverage, contending that the complaint was brought "by, on behalf of, or in the right of" EAGALA, a type of claim excluded from coverage by the insurance policy. EAGALA sued Carolina Casualty to establish coverage for the costs of defending the suit. The district court granted Carolina Casualty's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed EAGALA's complaint after determining that it was unnecessary and improper for the court to consider extrinsic evidence to discern whether Carolina Casualty had a duty to defend EAGALA. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that under the language of the insurance policy, extrinsic evidence was admissible to determined whether the complaint was actually filed by, on behalf of, or in the right of EAGALA. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that the district court erred when it refused to consider extrinsic evidence as required by the terms of the insurance policy. View "Equine Assisted Growth & Learning Ass'n v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Carter and Glenada Iverson were killed in a head-on collision with an underinsured motorist while driving a vehicle covered by their policy with State Farm. The personal representative of the Iversons' estate requested that State Farm provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in an amount equal to the liability policy limits of $100,000. State Farm offered $20,000, the limit under the Iversons' policy for the UIM claims. Iverson sued State Farm in district court. The Supreme Court granted certification to answer whether an insurer may provide lower limits for underinsured motorist coverage than for liability coverage under Utah law. The Court concluded that (1) such coverage may comply with Utah law if the insurer follows the consumer notification requirements contained in the Utah Code; (2) because notification requirements differ depending on when the insured's policy was issued, a court must first determine whether a new policy existed on or after January 1, 2001; and (3) a new policy exists on or after this date when the insurer and the insured enter into a new contractual relationship or if changes are made to the terms of an existing insurance contract that materially alter the levels of risk contained in the contract. View "Iverson v. State Farm" on Justia Law