In the case Valley Furniture Interiors, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance Co. (TIC) , 107 Wash.App. 104, 26 P.3d 952 (Div. 1 2001) the court entered a summary judgment in TIC's favor. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed.
The appellate court used the reasonable person standard in regard to the construction of the insurance policy as reviewed by an average person purchasing insurance.
The court considered the series of related acts as a chain of events that could reasonably have been anticipated to lead to the embezzlement and but for the participation of the payroll manager, the loss would not have occurred.
The three crimes of embezzlement used similar methodology for success, and began and ended at the same time. The payroll manager engaged in two occurrences of employee theft when she obtained money by unreimbursed payroll advances and unreimbursed merchandise purchases. The court addressed the matter by stating that the failure to report sums that should have been deducted from her paycheck was the manner through which she perpetrated her scheme.
These crimes taken together are related.
Duty to Cooperate:
In the case Medical Protective Co. (MPC) v. Bubenik, 594 F.3d 1047 (8 th Cir. 2010) the district concluded that Dr. Bubenik materially breached the cooperation clause in his insurance policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court stated that, according to the terms of his policy, Dr. Bubenik was not required to waive his constitutional rights under the MPC insurance policy. Dr. Bubenik was able to choose whether to assert his Fifth Amendment rights or to cooperate with the defense attorneys provided him. Cooperation was the only option that would allow him to retain his coverage. Both options remained available to him throughout the Johnson trial.
Substantial Hazard Increase:
In the case of Estate of Luster v. Allstate Insurance Co., 598 F.3d 903 (2010) the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate and dismissed Luster's suit. The United States Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
The Court determined that an occupied house did not necessarily create a substantial increase in hazard because houses are rarely occupied continuously. Further, the vacancy circumstances, usually found in insurance policies, must be considered in conjunction with the character or class of property to which it relates.
In any case, a home that is unoccupied does not create a substantial increase in hazard for insurers or insureds.