PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for John C. Pitblado

If it Races like a Tortoise: Connecticut Deconstructs a Policyholder

October 1, 2014 by John C. Pitblado and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of a Toy Race Track

From Zeno of Elea to the Washington Nationals, images of racing have ceaselessly troubled Western thought.  But as ancient metaphysics has given way to philosophy of language, the questions we ask ourselves have changed.  In Sonson v. United Services Auto. Ass'n  No. 35890 (Conn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2014), an automobile policyholder had to show that a "racing" exclusion did not apply, so he argued that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise if he was not "competing ... Keep Reading »

With Sewers Backing Up, Messy Damage Claims are On the Rise

September 25, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of Men Working in a Sewer

Andy crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of - - - smelling foulness I can't even imagine. Or maybe I just don't want to. Five hundred yards. The length of five football fields. Just shy of half a mile. –The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Many homeowners and other property insurance policies contain an exclusion to address one of the by-products of the increased frequency of severe weather: it bars coverage for property damage caused by "water which backs up ... Keep Reading »

Business Risk Exclusions in CGL Policies Produce a Patchwork of Decisions

August 28, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of a Lake in the Mountains

On July 23 and 24, 2014, respectively, intermediate appellate courts from South Carolina and Massachusetts released opinions upholding the application of the "your work" exclusion in a commercial general liability policy against claims based on contracted work that had been performed improperly.  These two decisions buttress application of the "your work" exclusion, but they also illustrate the fact that the area of business risk exclusions (which typically refers to the ... Keep Reading »

The Meth Business is Dangerous; (En)trust No One

August 12, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of Handcuffed Hands

For a landlord, it’s a bad day when your tenant gets busted for operating a meth lab, and the local authorities condemn your house because it’s contaminated with the byproducts of his business.  It’s even worse when you learn there is no coverage for the cost of cleaning up the contamination. Neighborhood Investments, LLC, leased a house in Louisville, Kentucky, to a Mr. Kenneth McCormick. As neighborhood investments go, this was not a winner.  Mr. McCormick was ... Keep Reading »

On Remand, District Court Expands Subcontractor Exception to Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

May 1, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

Recent decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Tenth and Second Circuits have partially overturned a longstanding rule against coverage for faulty workmanship under commercial general liability policies.  The rule, known as the “fortuity doctrine,” was based on insuring clauses that provided coverage only for claims arising out of an “occurrence,” and which defined “occurrence” to mean “accident.”  For many years, courts held that claims based on the insured’s ... Keep Reading »

In Late Notice Cases, There’s More at Stake than a Single Claim

April 8, 2013 by John C. Pitblado and Robert D. Helfand

Both property and liability policies contain provisions that require the insured to provide its carrier with timely notice of a claim, but cases in which late notice is used as a basis for denying coverage often leave the insurer in an unflattering light.  It is not always apparent that the late notice has made any actual difference to the insurer.  Consequently, even though most notice provisions are written as strictly as possible, making timely notice a condition ... Keep Reading »

In Faulty Workmanship Cases, Insuring Clause Dogs are Wagged by Exclusion Tails

April 1, 2013 by John C. Pitblado and Robert D. Helfand

In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1289 (10th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit articulated an important rule for construing commercial general liability policies: [A] CGL policy ‘begin[s] with a broad grant of coverage, w[hich is then limited in scope by exclusions.  Exceptions to exclusions narrow the scope of the exclusion and . . . add back coverage.  But it is the initial broad grant of ... Keep Reading »

Too Much of a Good Thing: Household Product Triggers Pollution Exclusion, Because “Quantity Matters”

March 22, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

Pollution exclusion clauses began appearing in commercial general liability policies when federal laws began making businesses liable for the cost of massive environmental clean-ups—like the remediation of “Volatile Organic Compounds” that was recently at issue in Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., No. 11-16272 (9th Cir. March 15, 2013).  A recent Colorado case presented the issue of when the grease that goes into your bacon double cheeseburger becomes a ... Keep Reading »

SCOTUS: Would-Be Class Representative Cannot Avoid CAFA Jurisdiction by Stipulating to Limit Damages

March 19, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

Some class action plaintiffs who want to keep their cases in state court execute “stipulations” not to seek more than $5 million in aggregated damages on behalf of the class.  When the case is removed, they argue that the defendant cannot establish that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000”—the threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  In a curt, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of ... Keep Reading »

Oregon Supreme Court Addresses Attorneys’ Fees for Appellate Proceedings in Class Action Over Automated Review of Medical Bills

March 12, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon is a class action that challenged the insurer’s use of automated bill review systems to determine the reasonableness of medical claims submitted under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage of automobile policies.  The plaintiff alleged that Farmers had promised to pay the “reasonable” cost of covered medical services, but had failed to do so.  In May 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon ruled that a class could ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing