The following provides a briefoverview of cases from 18 jurisdictions affecting important areasof insurance claim handling for 2010. In order to locate thesecases, we performed searches online through Westlaw. Searches were conducted to include all 50 states forthe 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 orlaw; the second where the case holding reinforced a currentprecedent or law.

Medicaid Lien Recovery

• Florida – Scharba v. Evrett, 2010 WL1380121 (March 31). Because the Medicaid lien does not exceed 50percent of the amount recovered in the settlement, the FloridaAgency for Health Care Administration is entitled to recover thefull amount of the lien.

Expert Testimony

• Delaware – Hudson v. Old Guard Ins.Co., 3 A. 3d 246 (September 1). Reaffirms that there is alimit to the knowledge about which an expert can testify. An expertcannot testify about a subject that falls within the purview of alayperson'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 whichan expert can testify. An expert cannot testify about a subjectwhen 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 millionin a punitive damages award against the insurer for breach ofcontract and bad faith, which was greater than compensatory damagesaward by ratio of 30:1 exceeded due process limits and was reducedto 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 contractsfrom insuring against claims for punitive damages based upon aninsured's malicious conduct. However, attorney fees awarded as aresult of punitive damages in automobile negligence action couldfall 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 MemorialHospital Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.,(June 7). The federal court applied two principles certified by thestate upreme court in 2009, which were:

1. Where insurer has no duty to defend and the insured hascontrolled the defense, the insured has the burden of proof toestablish proper allocation of the jury verdict between covered andnot covered; and
2. Where the insurance policy does not exclude punitive damagesand there is no duty to defend, an insured who has controlled thedefense in a case resulting in a punitive damage award and whoseeks allocation of the award has the burden of proving that theclaims on which the punitive damage award is based is covered bythe terms of the policy.

• District of Columbia – Nkpado v. StandardFire Insurance Co., 697 F.Supp. 94 (March 24). Insured whoengaged in negotiations with insurer past the one-year contractualdeadline for filing suit on the policy is time-barred. Punitivedamages can only be awarded where the alleged breach merges withand assumes the character of a willful tort.