In St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 16-12015 (11th Cir. May 29, 2018), a battle between excess and primary carriers, the Eleventh Circuit applied the so-called “realignment doctrine” to long-running coverage litigation and held that the district court never had jurisdiction over the matter in the first place. The underlying dispute arose out of several explosions at an Imperial Sugar Co. refinery in ... Keep Reading »
Excess
Connecticut Appellate Court Addresses Trigger, Allocation, Exclusions, and Other Issues of First Impression in Coverage Litigation Over Long-Latency Asbestos Injury Cases
Connecticut’s intermediate appellate court addressed a number of novel issues in a wide-ranging opinion regarding primary and excess insurers’ respective duties to defend and indemnify their common insured for long-tail asbestos-related injury claims. The opinion was rendered unanimously and authored collectively by the three-judge panel of Robert Beach, Douglas Lavine, and Stuart Bear (ret.). The case, styled R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and ... Keep Reading »
Peerless, This is Not: Sixth Circuit Finds No Latent Ambiguity in Consent to Settle Requirement in Excess Policy
Disputes between policyholders and excess insurers often involve events that occurred before the underlying defense costs or indemnity payments reached the excess layer. In Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 842 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2016), reh’g denied (Dec. 13, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed a situation where a policyholder settled a claim without obtaining the excess insurer’s consent to the settlement, ... Keep Reading »
California Appellate Court Takes Equitable Subrogation to the Excess
In California, where a primary insurer is found to have unreasonably failed to settle within its policy limits, and a judgment is later entered against their insured in excess of those limits, the primary carrier can be liable to the insured for breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. And, where the insured’s excess carrier becomes liable for damages that exceed the limits of the primary policy as a result, that carrier may pursue an equitable ... Keep Reading »
For Excess Liability Insurers, Consent-to-Settle Clauses Still Count
When a liability insurer defends its insured under a reservation, recent decisions limit the insurer’s right to enforce a policy’s consent-to-settle clause. But can the reservation affect the rights of an excess carrier? And does it matter if the carrier declines to participate in an upcoming mediation? Last month, in The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. The Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., G050689 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2016), a California appellate court (applying Missouri ... Keep Reading »
Conflict Resolution: Illinois Appellate Court Finds No Conflict in Defending Two Insureds, and No Duty of Primary to Excess Insurer to Settle Case
When an insurer defends its insured under a liability policy, the insurer has a duty to act in good faith to the insured in responding to settlement offers. In Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1-14-0928 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2015), the Illinois Court of Appeals determined that, where a primary insurer and excess insurer provide coverage to a common insured, the primary does not owe the same duty to the excess – at least where the ... Keep Reading »
Cybersecurity as a Regulatory Issue: The NAIC Considers The Anthem Breach And Weighs a “Cybersecurity Bill of Rights”
The Cybersecurity Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the "NAIC") met last month, as part of on the NAIC's 2015 Summer National Meeting in Chicago. The Task Force focused on two issues: the recent massive data breach suffered by Anthem, Inc., and a draft "Consumer Cybersecurity Bill of Rights" that was released for public comment in late July. The Anthem Breach Anthem's general counsel reported that the FBI has completed its ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Finds Erosion in Texas—Because Endorsements Are Transformative
In Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Specialty Ins Co., No. 14-20239 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015), a case that applied Texas law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the word "expenses," as used in a liability policy, unambiguously applies to attorneys' fees—and that an endorsement dealing with "expenses" had "transform[ed] the policy in an 'eroding limits' policy." Among other things, the case shows that Texans and New Yorkers don't use words ... Keep Reading »
New York District Court Rejects Excess Carrier’s Attempt to Stack Primary Limits in Continuous Exposure Case
Cases involving continuous exposure present unique challenges. Determining when the alleged injury occurred is critical in evaluating causation, damages, and statute of limitations defenses. The date and nature of the alleged occurrence is also often determinative of coverage. And as a recent decision from the Northern District of New York reminds us, the question is not only whether there is coverage in the first instance, but also which carrier has to pay. The ... Keep Reading »
Et tu, Buddy?: When Excess Insurers Sue for Bad Faith
Insurers don’t, as a rule, like bad faith suits. But life can play funny tricks—as when a judgment against an insured breaches a layer of excess coverage, because the primary carrier failed to settle within its policy limits. In those circumstances, a number of jurisdictions hold that the excess carrier is subrogated to the insured’s right to sue the primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co., 76 Cal App. 3d 1031 ... Keep Reading »