An Alaska politician once said of the folks she grew up with, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." But those virtues don’t exactly leap out of the story behind Williams v. Geico Cas. Co., No. S–14089 (Alaska Jan. 25, 2013), which mostly has to do with alcohol, selfishness and stupidity. At the climax of this sordid tale, a party to the lawsuit argued that an insurer’s refusal to offer policy limits for a release of only one ... Keep Reading »
Additional Insured
Live Free of Actual Knowledge or Coverage Will Die
In September 2012, the highest court of the Granite State reversed a decision that rescinded an insurance contract on the basis of a material false statement in the application. The Supreme Court held that rescission was unavailable, because the policy was ambiguous. The court suggested, in other words, that an insurance policy must clearly express the insurer’s intention not to be forced to provide coverage on the basis of misrepresentations. Parties to other types ... Keep Reading »
A Porous Border: Insurers Finding it Hard to Exclude Coverage for Additional Insureds
Landlords and tenants, contractors and sub-contractors, even fathers and sons often establish relationships that make one party potentially liable for the acts of the other. One way to manage the risk these relationships create is for one party to add the other to its liability insurance policy as an additional insured. On the other side, insurers try to limit their exposure to additional insureds by defining coverage in a way that applies only to risks the additional ... Keep Reading »