PropertyCasualtyFocus

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

Duty to Indemnify

All in Good Time: Another Court Refuses to Allow Plaintiff to Force an Early Resolution of Insurer’s Rights Under a Liability Policy

April 4, 2013 by John R. Hart

Like insurance companies, plaintiffs’ class action attorneys do better when they know how to manage risk.  Bringing a case to trial can involve an enormous investment of time and resources, and most firms can’t afford to do it if there’s a significant chance the defendant will not be entitled to liability coverage at the end of the day.  For that reason, avoiding an early resolution of coverage issues can sometimes help an insurer negotiate a more favorable settlement.  ... 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 »

In the Last Frontier, Insurers Shouldn’t Leave Defendants Out in the Cold

February 26, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

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 »

Federal Court Refuses to Let Insured Shoot First, Seek Coverage Later

February 20, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the issue has been taken up passionately by both sides of the dispute over gun violence.  Did the murderers in Newtown and Aurora kill in large numbers because they were able to fire many shots quickly, and without reloading, as Sen. Lautenberg believes?  Or,  as a Wall Street Journal editorial recently suggested, can the proliferation of mass killings be more reasonably attributed to the practice of designating “gun-free zones” in ... Keep Reading »

If a Tree Falls, and No Court Held an Insurer Must Defend It, Is There a Breach of Contract?

February 11, 2013 by John R. Hart

A liability carrier claims a policy does not require it to defend a particular lawsuit.  A federal district court agrees, and the insurer stops providing a defense.  Five years later, a Court of Appeals reverses.  Did the insurer breach its insurance contract?  In what appears to be a case of first impression, a federal court in California has said “no,” because holding otherwise would “tip the scales too far in favor of the insured.”  ... Keep Reading »

Excess is Enough: Courts Decline to Expand Liability of Excess Insurers

January 15, 2013 by John R. Hart

Judicial opinions that purport to construe “the policy as a whole” are often bad news for insurers, but two recent decisions used that analysis to defeat plaintiffs with novel arguments for making their excess insurers liable for losses within the primary layer. Intel Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., No. 692, 2011 (Del. Sept. 7, 2012), arose out of antitrust litigation against the chip manufacturer, in which Intel paid more than $50 million ... Keep Reading »

A Porous Border: Insurers Finding it Hard to Exclude Coverage for Additional Insureds

January 10, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

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 »

The Limits of the Real: Narrow Readings of Policy Terms put Losses in a Virtual Realm

January 9, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

Ludwig Wittgenstein famously declared that “[t]he world is everything that is the case.”  In three recent cases involving liability policies, courts remind us that injury can occur beyond the limits of the world that consists of “property”—or even of “substance.” 1. PPI Technology Services, L.P., was hired to “assist in well-planning” on three oil leases in Boudreaux, Louisiana.  Its responsibilities included overseeing the drilling of wells.  When PPI dug an empty ... Keep Reading »

Reservation of Rights can put Insurers on the Hook for Cost of Independent Counsel

January 8, 2013 by Scott C. Shine

When a liability insurer provides a defense subject to a reservation of rights, it seeks to preserve its own rights, while avoiding prejudice to the insured in the underlying claim.  If the insurer ultimately wins the coverage battle, it can try to recover the cost of the defense it provided.  Whether it can succeed is a question that different states answer in a wide variety of ways. In New York, insurers can recoup defense costs by establishing a lack of coverage.  ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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