In QBE Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contracting Corp. (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't Oct. 29, 2014), an intermediate appellate court in New York confronted cross-appeals involving 15 different insurers embroiled in multiple lawsuits, including consolidated class actions. The core issue of the case was whether the insurers for a variety of subcontractors were obligated to provide a defense to tenants' lawsuits against the developer and general contractor of a doomed residential ... Keep Reading »
Excess
Well, That Seemed Exhausting: When Is an Excess Insurer Obligated to Post an Appellate Bond?
"You say to-may-toe; I say to-mah-toe," or so the saying goes. According to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Charter Oak Insurance Company v. Maglio Fresh Food, No. 12-3967 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 9, 2014), the same can be said of a "cost of appellate bond" provision in a liability policy: Debating whether this "hybrid" term is part of the duty to defend or the duty to indemnify "is not easily nor necessarily answerable." The underlying Maglio Fresh Food case involved ... Keep Reading »
New Jersey Appellate Court Keeps “Running Spigot” Open on Allocation of Defense Costs Under Non-Eroding-Limit Fronting Policies (and Other Spooky Tales from the Towers of Coverage Past)
New Jersey's Appellate Division recently affirmed each of several challenged rulings rendered in a long-running coverage dispute between plaintiff IMO Industries and its many historical insurers arising from asbestos exposure-related injuries dating back to the 1940's. IMO sought declaratory and other relief to establish IMO's and the defendant insurers' respective obligations for defense and indemnity of underlying personal injury lawsuits against IMO. Plaintiff IMO ... Keep Reading »
Get Exhausted! The Tenth Circuit Schools an Excess Insurer on How to Preserve Subrogation Claims in a Settlement
When I die, I want to be exhausted. –Bryan Cranston Claims against insured businesses sometimes implicate multiple liability policies issued by several different carriers, and it is sometimes prudent for some of those carriers to settle the underlying action, even if others are unwilling to contribute to the settlement. At that point, it is important for the settling insurer carefully to analyze the relevant coverage terms, before the structure of the settlement has ... Keep Reading »
No, SIR: The Self-Insured Retains a Duty of Self-Defense
In the realm of liability insurance, the terms “deductible” and “self-insured retention” are often used interchangeably, but the two provisions have important differences. Among other things, “policies which are subject to self-insured retentions are ‘excess policies' which have no duty to indemnify until the self-insured retention is exhausted.” Century Indemnity Co. v. The Marine Group, No. 3:08-CV-01375-AC (D. Ore. Dec. 3, 2012), quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. ... Keep Reading »
Excess is Enough: Courts Decline to Expand Liability of Excess Insurers
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 »
Excess Policy Covers Liability for Occurrence Continuing After the Policy Period Ends
The Second Circuit has held that property damage occurring after the term of an excess liability policy may be included in the calculation of whether damages from a single occurrence reach the policy’s attachment point. In Olin Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 11-4055-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2012), an insured manufacturer of industrial chemicals filed suit against its excess liability insurers, claiming they owed a duty to indemnify it for its costs of remediating ... Keep Reading »