PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Duty to Indemnify

Duty to Indemnify

New York Court Finds Securities Settlements Not Covered by D&O Policies Due to Insured Capacity and Uninsurable Loss Issues

February 26, 2021 by Alex B. Silverman

thief, money

A New York trial court recently granted summary judgment to a group of excess D&O insurers seeking a declaration that their policies do not cover settlements and consent judgments the defendants paid in connection with underlying securities actions. The decision emphasizes the insured capacity limitation in the D&O policy definition of a “wrongful act” and also reinforces that amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of New York ... Keep Reading »

Outlier Decision of New York Appellate Court Denies Insurer’s Right to Recoup Defense Costs Even Though Court Found No Duty to Indemnify

January 29, 2021 by Charles W. Stotter

Recoupment of defense costs (defense fees and costs) by insurers in the absence of a duty to indemnify under a liability policy is an unsettled issue in many states. In a recent decision, a New York intermediate appellate court held that even though there was no duty to indemnify an underlying personal injury action under a CGL policy, the insurer could not recoup the defense costs it had advanced under a reservation of rights (ROR) letter where the policy at issue ... Keep Reading »

New York Supreme Court Allows Paint Company to Pursue Coverage for $102M Lead Paint Settlement

January 15, 2021 by Novera H. Ahmad

painting

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries Inc., a New York Supreme Court recently ruled that paint maker NL Industries Inc. may seek insurance coverage for its almost $102 million share of a settlement, stemming from a suit over the negative impact of the use of its lead-based paint in California homes and buildings. A Case 20 Years in the Making The underlying suit was first filed in 2000 by certain California counties that sought to hold a number of ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Applies Willful Violation of Law Exclusion in Professional Liability Policy To Preclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Lawsuit Stemming From Doctor’s Unlawful Distribution of Fentanyl

December 4, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

In National Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Hampton, No. 19-17235 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that a doctor’s guilty plea to the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance barred insurance coverage under his professional liability policy for a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit resulting from a patient’s overdose. According to the Ninth Circuit, the doctor’s admission that he intentionally distributed fentanyl clearly implicated the ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Adopts General Rule Regarding Circumstances in Which Excess Insurers May Dispute Exhaustion of Underlying Insurance

November 13, 2020 by Alex B. Silverman

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently adopted a general rule that will sharply limit the ability of excess insurers to second-guess payment decisions made by lower-level insurers. Subject to limited exceptions, the court concluded that an excess carrier generally cannot challenge decisions underlying insurers made with respect to earlier, unrelated claims, as a basis for arguing that its own layer of coverage has not yet been reached.  AXIS ... Keep Reading »

Massachusetts High Court Rejects Insurance Company’s Application of “Physical Abuse” Exclusion to a Personal Injury Claim Involving One-Time Unintentional Contact

October 16, 2020 by Novera H. Ahmad

Picture of Jack Dempsey Boxing

Insurance companies typically incorporate intentional harm exclusions into their homeowners’ insurance policies, which allow them to deny coverage where the insured intentionally causes bodily injury or property damage. Policies also often include an exclusion for physical abuse and molestation. However, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Dorchester Mutual Insurance Co. v. Timothy Krussell et al., No. SJC-12856 (Mass. Aug. 13, 2020), an attempt by an ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Explicitly Adopts Distinction Following Hoover to Confirm That Coverage Cannot Be Created Through Waiver or Estoppel

August 12, 2020 by Amanda Proctor

Moving van parked outside an apartment complex

On July 30, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. v. ECI Management LLC reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer, AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. In that case, AEGIS issued a real estate services professional liability policy to ECI Management LLC. Subsequently, ECI was named as a defendant in a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleged that ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Weighs in on Allocated Verdict Form Procedure

May 8, 2020 by J. Kent Crocker

The Eleventh Circuit, in the matter of QBE Specialty Insurance Co. v. Scrap Inc., affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of QBE holding that there was no indemnity coverage for an underlying judgment where a non-allocated verdict form was used because the insured could not meet its burden of allocating between coverage and uncovered damages. Background QBE Specialty Insurance Co. issued a general commercial liability (GCL) ... Keep Reading »

Pennsylvania Court Ices General Reservation of Rights Letters: Insurers Must Specify “Emergent Coverage Issues”

May 1, 2020 by Roben West

In Selective Way Insurance Co. v. MAK Services Inc., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed an insurer-favorable summary judgment after finding that its reservation of rights letter was insufficient. Following what appeared to be a standard slip-and-fall case, an insurer provided a defense under a reservation of rights to its insured — a snow and ice removal company. Astonishingly, the policy contained a snow and ice removal exclusion, barring coverage for bodily ... Keep Reading »

Seventh Circuit Finds “Based Upon or Arising Out of” Language in Contract Exclusion Renders Coverage “Illusory”

November 6, 2019 by Christina Gallo

In Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. v. DVO, Inc., No. 18-2571 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019), the Seventh Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, finding that the contractual liability exclusion in an E&O policy containing “based upon or arising out of” language rendered coverage under the policy “illusory” and therefore must be reformed to match the policyholder’s “reasonable expectations.” The appeal ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 9
  • 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

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • 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

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