The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an automobile insurer must pay an innocent third party the contracted $10,000 amount of basic coverage following an auto accident involving the insured's vehicle, despite that the policy was procured by fraud and rescinded. Luckily for the insurer, the Court held that the insurer was only responsible for the amount of coverage provided by the rescinded policy, which was $5,000 less than the $15,000 per person/$30,000 per ... Keep Reading »
Duty to Indemnify
Accrual to be Kind: Pennsylvania Appellate Court Addresses Statute of Limitations for Declaratory Claim
A Pennsylvania appeals court recently addressed a nuanced procedural question: the applicable statute of limitations in a declaratory action of a coverage dispute. In Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Hospitality Group Svcs, Inc., No. 1430 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 7, 2015), the court determined that an insurer’s responsibility to commence a timely action for declaratory relief in a coverage dispute begins to toll when the insurer has a factual basis sufficient to allow it ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Finds Defects in the Construction of a “Known-Loss” Exclusion
A mason who performed work on a residential project was notified in 2006 that cracks had developed in his work. Several months later, the mason purchased a commercial general liability policy that expressly excluded coverage for property damage, if an insured "knew that the … damage had occurred, in whole or in part." In 2007, the project's general contractor sued the mason, claiming that defects in his work had caused the property damage that was the subject of a suit ... Keep Reading »
Cyberclaim Coverage Denied: The TCPA Protects Privacy, Not Personally Identifiable Information
In Doctors Direct Ins., Inc. v. Beaute’ E’mergente, LLC, No. 1-14-2919 (Ill. App. Ct. June 22, 2015), an Illinois state appellate court recently affirmed that a medical malpractice liability insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify its insured in an underlying class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the “ICFA”), because there was no ... Keep Reading »
Florida Appellate Court Rejects Bid to Curb Insureds’ Assignments to Contractors
Many property insurance policies contain terms that prohibit assignment, but Florida law has long deemed those terms inoperative once a loss has occurred. E.g., W. Fla. Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 74 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1917). As a result, contractors who repair or remediate damaged property increasingly offer to accept assignments from policyholders in lieu of payment—a practice that gives them greater leverage in setting prices, because it enables them to back ... Keep Reading »
Georgia Supreme Court: Insurer Did Not “Unreasonably” Withhold Consent to Settle
In Piedmont Office Realty Trust v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., No. S15Q0418 (Ga. Apr. 20, 2015), the Georgia Supreme Court reiterated that, in the face of a policy provision prohibiting the insured from unilaterally settling a claim, the insured may not enter into a settlement and then seek coverage or assert a bad faith claim. Piedmont, the insured, was named as a defendant in a federal securities class action. Its defense was covered under both a $10 million ... Keep Reading »
Rumors of Revival Were Greatly Exaggerated: Fifth Circuit Reverses Opinion on Contractual Liability Exclusion
We previously discussed the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 11-10166 (5th Cir June 27, 2014)—an opinion that seemed to revive the contractual liability exclusion by distinguishing a landmark Texas decision that had narrowed the exclusion's scope. That was then. Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew that order and issued a new opinion on rehearing. The new opinion ... Keep Reading »
A DJ is a Sometime Thing: In Declaratory Judgment Actions Over Coverage, the Sixth Circuit Gives Trial Courts a Wide Berth
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, gives federal district courts "unique and substantial discretion" over whether to hear suits seeking a declaration of rights. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995). To guide the exercise of that discretion, Courts of Appeals have created lists of relevant considerations—most of which were borrowed from Moore's Federal Practice. See Reifer v. Westport Ins. Co., 751 F.3d 129, 145 n.20 (3d Cir. 2014) ... Keep Reading »
Like Hats and Belt Buckles, Indemnity Agreements in Texas Must be CONSPICUOUS
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety. –Isaac Asimov Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Texas law allows an indemnity agreement to insulate a party from the consequences of its own, allegedly negligent conduct, but only if that feature of the agreement is disclosed conspicuously. In Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 13-3027 (10th Cir. Dec. 9, ... Keep Reading »
Carhops and Cash Deposit Bags: Insurer Skates From the “Dual Purpose” Doctrine
For many, Sonic Drive-In restaurants stir thoughts of juicy burgers, neon-blue sodas, ‘50s rock ‘n’ roll, and roller-skating carhops. Recently, however, in Hudson Specialty Insurance Company v. Brash Tygr, LLC, Nos. 13-1688, 13-1742 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals served up an opinion in a commercial insurance coverage dispute with a little less flavor and fanfare, in analyzing the proper application of the "dual purpose" doctrine in the ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next Page »