PropertyCasualtyFocus

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

Exclusions/Exceptions

Common Sense Prevails Over Dictionary Definitions: Rolling Trash Bins Are Not ‘Vehicles’ Judge Explains

July 23, 2018 by Brendan Gooley

Trash Bins on Wheels

A federal judge recently refused an insured’s attempt to escape a policy exclusion by contending that a large “storage bin” on wheels was a “vehicle” under an exception to the exclusion, which prohibited coverage for costs associated with gas system tests. In 1070 Park Ave. Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., No. 17 CIV. 2474 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2018), appeal docketed No. 18-1961 (2d Cir. June 29, 2018), the judge ruled that the storage bin was not a “vehicle” as that ... Keep Reading »

The Sentinel Strike: The Hartford’s Gift to New York Insurers in the War to Stop Policyholder Experts from Claiming Ambiguities Exist in Clear Policy Exclusions

June 15, 2018 by Jason Morris

In this age of exponentially increasing technology, we can rely on one certainty in property casualty jurisprudence – that is, bold policyholder assertions supported by even bolder “expert” opinions. In BF Advance, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-5931 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018), decided in New York federal court this past March, the policyholder argued that a CGL policy’s Software Exclusion does not apply to injuries caused by software, and hired an insurance ... Keep Reading »

An Expert Is Only as Good as His Actual Experience

May 25, 2018 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Hurricane-damaged hotel

Experts are often used to address issues of causation and scope of damages in insurance coverage matters. It is well established, however, that an expert must be qualified through specific training or actual experience. Without such training or experience, a purported expert’s affidavit may not be sufficient to create an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Such was the lesson in Superhost v Selective Ins (NY App 2018-04-12), Case No. 525034 (NY ... Keep Reading »

Drawing a Line in the Sand: The Second Circuit Tries to Define Where D&O Coverage Ends and E&O Coverage Begins

March 30, 2018 by Amanda Proctor

Facebook

Policyholders often obtain both errors and omissions (E&O) and directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policies because they provide complementary coverage. E&O policies provide coverage for claims for wrongful acts arising from the provision of "professional services," and while D&O policies also provide coverage for claims for wrongful acts, they often exclude coverage for such claims arising from the provision of professional services. Despite ... Keep Reading »

AIG Won’t Have to Defend Carfax in $50 Million Antitrust Suit

March 19, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney

AIG Carfax Car Lot

On March 1, a New York appeals court ruled that American International Group, Inc. (AIG) need not defend Carfax, Inc. against a $50 million suit alleging the company monopolized the vehicle history report market. The decision affirmed the lower court’s determination that the matter did not fall within the insuring agreement and that, even if it did, it would be precluded from coverage based on the application of the policy’s antitrust exclusion. In May 2017, AIG ... Keep Reading »

When Relying on a Prior Acts Exclusion to Deny Coverage, Be Sure to Connect the Dots

February 26, 2018 by Benjamin Stearns

Bank Owned Real Estate Sign

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 16-16702 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that a “prior acts” exclusion in a D&O policy did not bar coverage where the insurer failed to prove a clear connection to events that occurred before inception of the insurance policy. As this case demonstrates, when an insurer relies on a prior acts exclusion to deny coverage, it not only must establish the wrongful ... Keep Reading »

Look Beneath the Surface: No Coverage for DC Row House Collapse Under Builder’s Risk Policy

February 2, 2018 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Row of Lego Houses

The interpretation of a property insurance policy may seem like a dull endeavor, but courts sometimes face fundamental questions about what words mean, or how we conceptualize cause and effect. In Taja Investments LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 16-1854 (4th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confronted both issues to determine that two exclusions in a builder’s risk policy applied to bar coverage for the collapse of a row house under renovation in ... Keep Reading »

War: What is it good for? Business Loss and the War Exclusion

November 17, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

In summer 2014, Israel and Hamas were engaged in armed conflict. Thousands of residents of Gaza and Israel were killed or injured, and much of Gaza City was destroyed by rocket fire and other heavy weapons. The Israeli Defense Force dispatched tens of thousands of ground troops to the area, and international attention from the United Nations and other interested parties, including the United States, focused on the “conflict.” But was it a “war?” The United States has ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Confirms Privacy Exclusion Bars TCPA Claims

November 3, 2017 by Daniel G. Enriquez

Kobe Bryant mural on the wall of a hotel

Claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) present numerous issues for insurance companies and policyholders. Because TCPA claims lend themselves to class action suits, the potential exposure can be significant. For years, liability insurers have argued that invasion of privacy exclusions bar coverage for claims under the TCPA. These arguments received a boost when the Ninth Circuit held that “a liability insurance policy that unequivocally and broadly ... Keep Reading »

SDNY Rules SEC Investigation Is A “Claim” Within Pending and Prior Acts Exclusion

October 27, 2017 by Alex B. Silverman

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a long-running investigation by the SEC constituted a “Claim” triggering the pending and prior claims exclusion in an excess directors and officers (“D&O”) policy. See Patriarch Partners, LLC v. AXIS Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-2277 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017). This case stems from a high-profile SEC investigation into plaintiff Patriarch Partners, LLC (“Patriarch”) relating to certain ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • …
  • 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