- 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?
- Loss of Use: Is the At-Fault Driver's Insurer Required to Provide a "Comparable" Rental Vehicle?
- Auto Dealer-Arranged Financing: When must TIL Disclosures be Provided?
- Leasing, Rentals and Vicarious Liability: An Overview of the Graves Amendment
- Dealership Arranged Financing: The Indirect Auto Lending Process
- The Liability Insurer’s “Hidden” Duty to Defend-- the Obligation to Pay for its Insured’s Affirmative Claims.
- MN AUTO COVERAGE: NON-EXISTENT POLICY EXCLUSIONS, CONFORMITY CLAUSES & THE NO-FAULT ACT
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
Tag Archives: Duty to Defend
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
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
Subcontractor Liable for General Contractor’s Pre-Notice Defense Fees
Many states recognize that a liability insurer is not obligated to pay for the defense of a claim until it is notified of the suit. See, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, 658 N.W.2d 522, … Continue reading
Minnesota Adopts “Equitable Contribution” to Apportion Defense Fees
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled, finally, the archaic “Iowa National” rule. Iowa National prohibited a defending liability insurer from seeking contribution or reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs from other liability insurers who refused to defend. In Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Universal … Continue reading
Insurer Obligated to Defend if “Potential” of Coverage Exists
By: Gregory J. Johnson, Esq In most commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, the liability insurer will have the “right” or “discretion” to investigate and settle claims prior to litigation and the “duty” to defend when a suit is commenced seeking … Continue reading
AUTO DEALER + COVERAGE BUZZ 