- Follow AUTO DEALER + COVERAGE BUZZ on WordPress.com
-
-
Recent Posts
- MINNESOTA NO-FAULT ACT: WHEN IS AN INJURED CLAIMANT “OCCUPYING” A VEHICLE – “IN,” “ON,” “ENTERING INTO” AND “ALIGHTING FROM”
- MN AUTO COVERAGE: NON-EXISTENT POLICY EXCLUSIONS, CONFORMITY CLAUSES & THE NO-FAULT ACT
- Minnesota No-Fault Coverage: “Stacking” the Weekly Rate-of-Pay-Limit
- G Johnson Law: Neutral Insurance Coverage Evaluations
- Minnesota Auto Coverage: Supreme Court holds that Non-Licensed Insurers Must Pay Minnesota Benefits Too
Disclaimer
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not reflect those of the author’s law firm or the author’s past and present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. The law is constantly changing and is different in each jurisdiction. If you want legal advice, please consult an attorney. The opinions expressed here belong only to the individual contributor(s). Gregory J. Johnson © All rights reserved 2015.Top Posts & Pages
- Protecting the Dealership's "Front-End" and "Back-End": What Does that Mean?
- Rental Car Coverage: Diminution in Value, Loss of Use & Loss Damage Waiver (LDW) -- the Basics
- Why do Auto Dealers Purchase Limited Truth in Lending Coverage?
- Leasing, Rentals and Vicarious Liability: An Overview of the Graves Amendment
- Loss of Use: Is the At-Fault Driver's Insurer Required to Provide a "Comparable" Rental Vehicle?
- The Graves Amendment: Does it Shield Membership-Based Car Sharing Services from Vicarious Liability?
- Yikes!! Self-Insured Enterprise Rent-A-Car Required to pay $600,000 on behalf of Renter even though Insurer’s Maximum Liability would have been $50,000.
- Minnesota Car Rental: Handling BI/PD, UM/UIM & Rental Vehicle Damage Claims
- Minnesota No-Fault Coverage: “Stacking” the Weekly Rate-of-Pay-Limit
- The Auto Dealer Liability Policy: Analyzing Coverage for Statutory Acts, Errors or Omissions Claims (TILA, CLA, FCRA, ECOA, FTC, GLB, CFA & UDTPA)
Archives
- October 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (2)
- December 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (4)
- February 2016 (5)
- January 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (1)
- October 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (2)
- March 2015 (5)
- January 2015 (1)
- November 2014 (5)
- October 2014 (3)
- September 2014 (11)
- August 2014 (9)
- November 2010 (6)
- October 2010 (3)
- September 2010 (5)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (8)
Auto Dealer Monthly- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Auto Rental News
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Insurance Journal
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Follow on Facebook
Category Archives: Duty to Indemnify
Auto Coverage: “Absolute” & “Frozen” Liability under the Minnesota No-Fault Act
By Greg Johnson. A parent completes a personal auto application for automobile insurance and does not disclose that there are any other licensed drivers in the household that will operate the insured vehicle. Later, after the policy is issued, a … Continue reading
Posted in Coverage, Duty to Indemnify, PAP
Tagged Auto Insurance, Insurance Law, Insurance policy
Leave a comment
Protecting the Dealership’s “Front-End” and “Back-End”: What Does that Mean?
By Greg Johnson. Everyone in the retail automobile industry is familiar with the terms “front-end” and “back-end.” They represent two sources of potential revenue (and, hopefully, profit) for auto dealerships: The “front-end” refers to revenue realized on the sale of … Continue reading
Posted in ADCF Policy, Auto Dealer, Coverage, Duty to Defend, Duty to Indemnify, Truth in Lending Coverage
Tagged Acts Errors and Omissions Coverage, Auto Dealers Coverage, Auto Dealers Operations, Auto Dealerships, Consumer Protection Statutes, Duty to Defend, Regulatory Compliance, Truth in Lending
Leave a comment
The Graves Amendment: Is an Auto Dealer Vicariously Liable for a Customer’s Negligent Operation of a Loaner Vehicle?
By Greg Johnson. Does the Graves Amendment apply to auto dealerships who provide loaner vehicles to their customers? In a previous post, I provided an overview of the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (49 USC § 30106) (a/k/a “Graves Amendment”), … Continue reading
Posted in ADCF Policy, Auto Dealer, BAP, Coverage, Duty to Indemnify, PAP, Rentals
Tagged Graves Amendment, Motor vehicle, Vicarious liability
Leave a comment
Should an Auto Dealer Insurer Defend an Auto Dealer Against “Intentional” Violations of Credit Sale and Leasing Disclosure Laws?
Introduction By Greg Johnson. Having worked in the consumer finance and insurance coverage arenas for over twenty years, I have frequently been asked whether an auto dealer’s “intentional” or “wilful” violation of a statutory disclosure law, such as the federal … Continue reading
Insured’s Investigation and Overhead Expenses Not Covered by Policy
Every once in awhile a policyholder asks whether the costs it incurred in addressing a third-party property damage claim, such as inspection costs, personnel costs, overhead costs and attorneys’ fees are covered by its Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy. Unless the costs qualify … Continue reading
Liability Insurance: The Risks of Denying a Duty to Defend
By Greg Johnson. Deciding whether to defend the insured in a third-party lawsuit (which generally involves a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the policy), can be simple, complex or somewhere in between. Regardless, insurers should always factor in the potential risks … Continue reading
Minnesota CGL: Clean Up Costs Arising From Construction Operations Barred
In Engineering & Construction Innovations Inc. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., an unpublished decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals released on August 18, 2010, the court held that clean up costs arising out of the insured’s operations at the … Continue reading
Minnesota Coverage Law: Criminal Acts Exclusion
In Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. McDonough, ___ F3rd____ (8th Cir. 2010) (applying Minnesota law), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently interpreted a criminal acts exclusion in an auto policy to bar coverage. After a night of drinking, Morelli … Continue reading
No CGL Coverage Where General Contractor Leaves in the Middle of Project
In Builders Mutual v. R Design, 2010 WL 2079741 (D.S.C.), a federal district court in South Carolina found no coverage exists under a CGL policy, despite “resulting damage,” when the general contractor performed faulty work and left in the middle of the … Continue reading
AUTO DEALER + COVERAGE BUZZ 