At issue is a contractual provision whereby an insured waives the right of their insurance carrier to seek redress or seek compensation for losses from a negligent third party.
A plaintiff argued that the terms of an original alarm services agreement were immaterial because it wasn’t suing on the contract, but on tort and implied warranty theories.
Goosehead will acquire Vivint Insurance Agency’s current book of business and provide service and support for Vivint’s insurance clients as it shifts its insurance strategy to a partnership model.
Many years ago I reported on a case decided in California. Fireman’s Fund had paid various claims for burglary or fire losses and filed a lawsuit against alarm companies that had contracts with the plaintiff`s insureds, claiming subrogation to losses arising from property damage incidents sustained by insureds.
A recent action was filed in the United States District Court of Nevada where the plaintiff, owner of a building, entered into a contract with the defendant alarm company’s predecessor for security services at the building, including monitoring alarms and dispatching responses to alarms. The contract was apparently subsequently assigned to the defendant alarm company.
In a recent New Jersey case, an insurance company appealed a trial court’s order of summary judgment that dismissed its subrogation claim against the defendant, the installer of the fire sprinkler at the premises.
