In Universal Cable Prods. LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., 2:16 cv-04435 PA, (9th Cir. July 12, 2019), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s determinations as it relates to the application of two war exclusions. In the summer of 2014, Universal Cable Productions was filming a television series, Dig, in Jerusalem. During filming, hostilities arose in the region as Hamas, a Palestinian political movement, began firing rockets from Gaza into Israel. The ... Keep Reading »
Exclusions/Exceptions
When Should an Insurer Deny Coverage? The Second Circuit Provides Guidance on What Constitutes a Reasonable Time by Which to Deny Coverage Under New York Law
Under New York law, a liability insurer is required to deny coverage for bodily injury resulting from an auto accident “as soon as is reasonably possible.” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(d)(2). The Second Circuit recently shed light on what constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of this statute in United Financial Casualty Co. v. Country-Wide Insurance Co., No. 18-3022 (2d Cir. July 1, 2019). In that case, Juan Pineda was involved in a three-vehicle accident while ... Keep Reading »
EDNY “Teas” It Up On Additional Insured, Finds Insurer May Withdraw Defense and Recoup Defense Costs
Given the broad duty to defend rules in most jurisdictions, liability insurers often find that they must — or perhaps should out of an abundance of caution — defend an insured against a claim that in all likelihood will not implicate the duty to indemnify, such as when extrinsic evidence strongly suggests that an exclusion will apply. In these situations, insurers in many states are permitted to offer a defense under a reservation of rights to withdraw and seek ... Keep Reading »
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Excess Carrier’s Suit Seeking Reimbursement of Amounts Paid in Underlying Medical Malpractice Settlement
Reprinted with permission in Medical Liability Monitor In Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-153 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2019), the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss an excess carrier's suit seeking reimbursement from its insured for settlement amounts the excess carrier paid in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit. According to the court, Ironshore plausibly alleged that Conemaugh Health Systems Inc. ... Keep Reading »
Coverage Issues Relating to Drones Take on New Heights: A California District Court Finds Drone-Related Injury Falls Within Policy’s Aircraft Exclusion
In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hollycal Production Inc. et. al., No. 5:18-cv-00768-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2018), a California district court held that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. was not obligated to defend or indemnify a photography firm whose drone blinded a wedding guest in one eye, finding that the drone-related injury fell within the policy’s aircraft exclusion. Darshan Kamboj, a guest at a California wedding, claimed that she lost sight in ... Keep Reading »
Court Enforces Policy’s Crumbling Foundation Plain Language in Dismissing Claims Against Insurers
A federal judge in Connecticut recently dismissed claims against insurers related to their denial of a claim by two homeowners whose home’s foundation was crumbling. The case, Hyde v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-00031 (D. Conn. Dec. 4, 2018), marks the latest development in what is quickly becoming a major source of litigation. When the Hydes tried to sell their house in 2016, they discovered that the home’s foundation was crumbling. Their foundation had allegedly ... Keep Reading »
Clearing the Air: Tenth Circuit Strikes Down an Indoor Air Quality Exclusion, Citing Ambiguity
Ambiguity strikes again. While the heavily litigated pollution exclusion is well-known in the insurance world, its progeny—the indoor air exclusion—only recently has started making its way around the block. Insurers should be aware of the trend in cases holding that indoor air quality exclusions are ambiguous. Such holdings are resulting in courts applying a strict and narrow construction. For example, in Siloam Springs Hotel v. Century Sur. Co., No. 17-6208 (10th Cir. ... Keep Reading »
Sixth Circuit Weighs in on Coverage for Marijuana-related Property Loss
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a colorful opinion in a property insurance coverage dispute affirming a denial of coverage for loss arising out of an illicit marijuana growing operation in Michigan. The case is captioned K.V.G. Properties Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 17-2421 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018). The insured was the lessor of commercial properties, including a property leased to certain tenants who, unbeknownst to the lessor, built a large-scale ... Keep Reading »
Professional Services Exclusion Precludes Coverage for False Claims Act Suit
It is not unusual for a directors and officers liability policy to have an exclusion for professional services. A such, a question often arises regarding whether the claimed wrongful conduct involved the rendering or failure to render professional services in a particular context. In HotChalk, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 16-17287 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018), the Ninth Circuit found that coverage was precluded for a False Claims Act suit because the insured’s ... Keep Reading »
An Absolute Pollution Exclusion: Reading the ‘Fine’ Print
A federal judge recently relied on a pollution exclusion to find that Great American Insurance Company was not obligated to cover losses associated with the unintended distribution of rock fines into New Jersey’s Spruce Run reservoir. In Great American Ins. Co. v. ACE American Ins. Co., No. 4:18-CV-114-A (N.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 2018), the Northern District of Texas examined the scope of an absolute pollution exclusion and found that it applied to bar coverage, despite the ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- …
- 15
- Next Page »