PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Exclusions/Exceptions

Exclusions/Exceptions

New York Supreme Court Allows Paint Company to Pursue Coverage for $102M Lead Paint Settlement

January 15, 2021 by Novera H. Ahmad

painting

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries Inc., a New York Supreme Court recently ruled that paint maker NL Industries Inc. may seek insurance coverage for its almost $102 million share of a settlement, stemming from a suit over the negative impact of the use of its lead-based paint in California homes and buildings. A Case 20 Years in the Making The underlying suit was first filed in 2000 by certain California counties that sought to hold a number of ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Applies Willful Violation of Law Exclusion in Professional Liability Policy To Preclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Lawsuit Stemming From Doctor’s Unlawful Distribution of Fentanyl

December 4, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

In National Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Hampton, No. 19-17235 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that a doctor’s guilty plea to the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance barred insurance coverage under his professional liability policy for a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit resulting from a patient’s overdose. According to the Ninth Circuit, the doctor’s admission that he intentionally distributed fentanyl clearly implicated the ... Keep Reading »

Massachusetts High Court Rejects Insurance Company’s Application of “Physical Abuse” Exclusion to a Personal Injury Claim Involving One-Time Unintentional Contact

October 16, 2020 by Novera H. Ahmad

Picture of Jack Dempsey Boxing

Insurance companies typically incorporate intentional harm exclusions into their homeowners’ insurance policies, which allow them to deny coverage where the insured intentionally causes bodily injury or property damage. Policies also often include an exclusion for physical abuse and molestation. However, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Dorchester Mutual Insurance Co. v. Timothy Krussell et al., No. SJC-12856 (Mass. Aug. 13, 2020), an attempt by an ... Keep Reading »

South Carolina Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Damages Discovered Years After Occurrence-Based Policy Expiration

October 9, 2020 by Roben West

Potential Six-Year Delay in Notice of Flood and Mold Damage “Substantially Prejudiced” Insurer In Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. Carolina Professional Builders, LLC et al., 2:18-cv-2352-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2020), a federal judge in South Carolina granted summary judgment to an insurer after finding that the record clearly supported that although flood and mold damages may have occurred during the policy period, that damage was distinct from the damage being ... Keep Reading »

The No Corners Rule? New York Federal Court Holds No Duty to Defend Where There Is No Possible Legal or Factual Basis for Indemnification of Insured

September 25, 2020 by Chael Clark

Little girl jumping on a trampoline

Under New York law, an insurer's duty to defend ends if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured. This rule was recently applied by the Southern District of New York in Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Streb, Inc., No. 19 CIV. 366 (KPF), 2020 WL 5549316 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020). In Streb, the Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("PIIC") issued a ... Keep Reading »

An Equitable Exception To the Four Corners Rule: The Eleventh Circuit Looks Beyond Operative Complaint To Find No Duty To Defend

September 18, 2020 by Amanda Proctor

Under Florida law, similar to that of other states, an insurer’s duty to defend is generally determined solely by the allegations found within the four corners of the complaint.  Florida courts, however, recognize an exception to that general rule and will allow for the consideration of extrinsic undisputed facts, which, if pled, would place the claim outside the scope of coverage. The Eleventh Circuit recently applied this exception in BBG Design Build, LLC v. Southern ... Keep Reading »

Fifth Circuit Holds That Ensuing Loss Provision of Builders’ Risk Policy Requires Two Separate Events to Qualify for the Construction Exclusion Carve-Out

September 15, 2020 by Benjamin Stearns

In Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 19-20216 (August 3, 2020), the Fifth Circuit determined that Liberty Mutual’s policy does not cover a construction company’s claim for window damage to a skyscraper caused by a subcontractor’s welding because the policyholder failed to show the damage resulted from a covered peril. The case turned on the court’s interpretation of the policy’s construction exclusion, which included an ... Keep Reading »

Coverage Claim Bites the Dust: Seventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for $50 Million Judgment Resulting From Dust Pollution Due to Known Claim and Expected or Intended Injury Exclusions

August 18, 2020 by Andrew Daechsel

In Greene v. Westfield Insurance Co., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment finding that commercial general liability policies issued by Westfield Insurance Co. did not cover a $50.56 million default judgment entered against its insured, VIM Recycling, based on the policies’ “known claims” and “expected or intended injury” exclusions. Dust Pollution Leads to $50.56 Million Default Judgment VIM Recycling operated a wood recycling ... Keep Reading »

Iowa Supreme Court Finds Fatality Allegedly Caused by Gross Negligence Was a Potential “Accident” Under CGL Policy

June 22, 2020 by Alex B. Silverman

Coverage under most commercial general liability (CGL) policies applies only to liability arising from an “accident.” As such, injury or damage that an insured “expected or intended” to occur is not covered. But whether an insured subjectively intended to cause injury may be difficult to determine, even when the conduct itself was clearly intentional. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Iowa, the court examined a related, if not potentially more difficult, ... Keep Reading »

A Case of Mass Listeria: Insurer’s Duty to Defend in New Jersey Contaminated Pizza Crusts Suit

June 5, 2020 by Chael Clark

Last week, in Conte’s Pasta Co. v. Republic Franklin Insurance Co., a New Jersey federal court ruled that Republic Franklin Insurance Co. was obligated to indemnify Conte’s Pasta for the costs incurred defending against a suit brought by one of its customers, Nature’s One, for damages related to listeria contamination in its gluten-free pizza crusts. Underlying Litigation In early 2017, Nature’s One contracted with Conte’s Pasta to manufacture gluten-free pizza ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • …
  • 15
  • 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