Under New York law, a liability insurer is required to deny coverage for bodily injury resulting from an auto accident “as soon as is reasonably possible.” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(d)(2). The Second Circuit recently shed light on what constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of this statute in United Financial Casualty Co. v. Country-Wide Insurance Co., No. 18-3022 (2d Cir. July 1, 2019). In that case, Juan Pineda was involved in a three-vehicle accident while ... Keep Reading »
Duty to Indemnify
EDNY “Teas” It Up On Additional Insured, Finds Insurer May Withdraw Defense and Recoup Defense Costs
Given the broad duty to defend rules in most jurisdictions, liability insurers often find that they must — or perhaps should out of an abundance of caution — defend an insured against a claim that in all likelihood will not implicate the duty to indemnify, such as when extrinsic evidence strongly suggests that an exclusion will apply. In these situations, insurers in many states are permitted to offer a defense under a reservation of rights to withdraw and seek ... Keep Reading »
California Federal Court Holds Scope of Duty to Defend Is Determined by the Language of the Contract
In Harper Construction Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 3:18-CV-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019), the Southern District of California rejected an insured's attempt to expand a CGL policy's definition of "suit" to encompass mere demands without a formal proceeding for damages. In 2007, the federal government awarded a contract for a military training facility in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to an insured general contractor. After structural ... Keep Reading »
Coverage Issues Relating to Drones Take on New Heights: A California District Court Finds Drone-Related Injury Falls Within Policy’s Aircraft Exclusion
In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hollycal Production Inc. et. al., No. 5:18-cv-00768-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2018), a California district court held that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. was not obligated to defend or indemnify a photography firm whose drone blinded a wedding guest in one eye, finding that the drone-related injury fell within the policy’s aircraft exclusion. Darshan Kamboj, a guest at a California wedding, claimed that she lost sight in ... Keep Reading »
Intentional Accidents: California Supreme Court Announces that General Commercial Liability Policies Apply to Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervising Claims for Failing to Prevent Intentional Torts
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that under California law, there was an unresolved question as to whether a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy covers an employer-insured for negligently failing to prevent an employee’s intentional misconduct. In essence, it was unclear whether such an incident constituted an “occurrence” that only covers “accidents,” as an intentional act cannot, by definition, be an ... Keep Reading »
SEC-ordered Disgorgement is an Uninsurable “Penalty,” not a Covered “Loss”
A New York intermediate appellate court has ruled that a $140 million “disgorgement” payment ordered by the SEC in resolution of an investigation into securities laws violations was a “penalty” that was not covered by insurance rather than a covered “loss.” The case, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op. 06146 (App. Div., 1st Dept. Sept. 20, 2018, stemmed from a 2003 investigation into claims that Bear Stearns employees knowingly ... Keep Reading »
Six Degrees of Separation: Eleventh Circuit Upholds a Broad ‘Related Claims’ Provision
“Related Claims” provisions in directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies, while common, can spawn disagreement as to scope and application. Beyond these substantive questions, an issue arises as to what information a court may consider in determining whether two or more claims are “related” within the meaning of a given policy. The Eleventh Circuit recently analyzed this issue in Health First, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance ... Keep Reading »
To Defend or Not to Defend? Northern District of Ohio Provides Guidance for Determining Whether to Defend an Arbitration
While the rules for determining whether a liability insurer has a duty to defend a lawsuit are generally well-known, questions can arise when an insurer is asked to defend an arbitration. For example, can an insurer’s duty to defend be determined by looking solely at the initial request for arbitration even if that document is not required to fully clarify the claims asserted and damages sought? According to the Northern District of Ohio’s decision in Maxum Indemnity ... Keep Reading »
CGL Policies and Data Breaches: No Publication, No Coverage
As cyber hacking and phishing schemes become more common, one issue that is often raised is whether, and to what extent, damages resulting from these incidents fall within the coverage afforded under a standard commercial general liability policy. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently addressed this issue Innovak Int'l, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., No. 8:16-CV-2453-MSS-JSS, (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2017), and held that a data breach was not ... Keep Reading »
New York’s High Court Holds Additional Insured Coverage Extends Only to Injuries Proximately Caused by Named Insured’s Fault
On June 6, the New York Court of Appeals in Burlington Insurance Co. v. NYC Transit Authority held that where liability is limited to injuries “caused, in whole or in part” by the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” coverage extends only to those injuries proximately caused by, not just causally linked to, the named insured’s actions or omissions. The 4-2 decision reversed the intermediate appellate court’s (Appellate Division, First Department) holding that under such ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 9
- Next Page »