The following provides a brief overview of cases from 18 jurisdictions affecting important areas of insurance claim handling for 2010. In order to locate these cases, we performed searches online through Westlaw. Searches were conducted to include all 50 states for the year. Search topics included statute of limitations, damages, and coverage. Our case selection criteria hinged on two factors: where the case holding highlighted a change in the precedent or law; the second where the case holding reinforced a current precedent or law.

Medicaid Lien Recovery

• Florida – Scharba v. Evrett, 2010 WL 1380121 (March 31). Because the Medicaid lien does not exceed 50 percent of the amount recovered in the settlement, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to recover the full amount of the lien.

Expert Testimony

• Delaware – Hudson v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 3 A. 3d 246 (September 1). Reaffirms that there is a limit to the knowledge about which an expert can testify. An expert cannot testify about a subject that falls within the purview of a layperson's knowledge.
• Connecticut – Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Precision Mechanical Services, Inc., 998 A. 2d 1228 (July 13). Also reaffirms that there is a limit to the knowledge about which an expert can testify. An expert cannot testify about a subject when a jury would have common knowledge.

Punitive Damages

• North Dakota – McElgunn v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Society, 700 F. Supp. 2d. 1141 (March 22). Holding $6 million in a punitive damages award against the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, which was greater than compensatory damages award by ratio of 30:1 exceeded due process limits and was reduced to ration of 8:1, or $1.6 million.
• Ohio – Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, et al, 928 N.E.2d 421 (May 4). Public policy prevents insurance contracts from insuring against claims for punitive damages based upon an insured's malicious conduct. However, attorney fees awarded as a result of punitive damages in automobile negligence action could fall under the general coverage of defendant's insurance policy for “damages [that] an insured person is legally obligated to pay” because of “bodily injury.”
• West Virginia – Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., (June 7). The federal court applied two principles certified by the state upreme court in 2009, which were:

1. Where insurer has no duty to defend and the insured has controlled the defense, the insured has the burden of proof to establish proper allocation of the jury verdict between covered and not covered; and
2. Where the insurance policy does not exclude punitive damages and there is no duty to defend, an insured who has controlled the defense in a case resulting in a punitive damage award and who seeks allocation of the award has the burden of proving that the claims on which the punitive damage award is based is covered by the terms of the policy.

• District of Columbia – Nkpado v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 697 F.Supp. 94 (March 24). Insured who engaged in negotiations with insurer past the one-year contractual deadline for filing suit on the policy is time-barred. Punitive damages can only be awarded where the alleged breach merges with and assumes the character of a willful tort.