Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California changed the law governing anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies. Twelve years ago, in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal.4th 934 (2003), the court held that such provisions are fully enforceable, until a claim against the insured has been reduced to either a judgment or a settlement. The latest case, Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, No. S205889 (Cal. ... Keep Reading »
General Liability
Ninth Circuit Finds Defects in the Construction of a “Known-Loss” Exclusion
A mason who performed work on a residential project was notified in 2006 that cracks had developed in his work. Several months later, the mason purchased a commercial general liability policy that expressly excluded coverage for property damage, if an insured "knew that the … damage had occurred, in whole or in part." In 2007, the project's general contractor sued the mason, claiming that defects in his work had caused the property damage that was the subject of a suit ... Keep Reading »
For “At-Issue Waiver,” The Best Defense May Not Be An Affirmative Defense
Silence is argument carried out by other means. –Ernesto “Che” Guevara As this blog has repeatedly documented, it can be hard for insurers to assert the attorney-client privilege in the context of bad faith litigation. One difficulty arises in states that enforce a presumption against the privilege in bad faith suits. In many cases, insurers need to waive the privilege, to assert a defense based on advice of counsel. Last month, a federal court in South Carolina ... 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 »
Who’s the Boss? In Policies Covering Multiple Insureds, the Details Matter
Liability policies for businesses are subject to a number of common exclusions; many, for example, do not cover liability to employees of the business who are injured on the job. Frequently, those policies do provide coverage to additional insured parties, such as lenders or property owners, that deal with the business. Recently, in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Politsopoulos, No. 60 MAP 2014 (Penn. May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question ... Keep Reading »
Fourth Circuit: If You Want to Limit Additional Insured Coverage to Vicarious Liability, You Should Say So
In Capital City Real Estate, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 14-1239 (4th Cir. June 10, 2015), the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that a Maryland federal court erred in granting summary judgment to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (“Lloyd's") in a coverage dispute between it and its insured, a construction contractor, by misinterpreting the “additional insured" endorsement in the policy issued by Lloyds. The lawsuit arose out of a construction ... Keep Reading »
Looking Backward: West Virginia Retroactively Imposes Coverage for Faulty Workmanship
A notorious moving target in the field of coverage litigation is an insurer's responsibility under a commercial general liability policy for the policyholder's faulty workmanship. The key question is usually whether the defect in workmanship is an "occurrence" within the meaning of a policy; the answer can depend on which court you ask or how those courts deal with other policy terms. In 2013, West Virginia's highest court overruled its own precedents to hold that CGL ... Keep Reading »
Wait A Minute, Mr. Postman: Tenth Circuit Applies Statutory-Violation Exclusion To Junk Fax Claims That Try To Skirt The TCPA
Enacted in 1991, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), inaugurated the era of "junk fax" class actions, in which recipients of mass fax advertisements may pursue statutory damages of $500 per class member. Insurers responded by adding terms to liability policies that expressly exclude coverage for claims under the TCPA. But the dialectic of coverage litigation is ineluctable, and plaintiffs began asserting, in effect, that the TCPA was ... Keep Reading »
Seeing the Finish Line: Courts Increasingly Exempt Claims-Made Policies from the Notice Prejudice Rule
In a majority of jurisdictions, the "notice-prejudice rule" provides that an insurer may not deny a claim on grounds of late notice without demonstrating prejudice. The rule is statutory in some states and judicially crafted in others. Most courts, however, also hold that the rule does not apply to late notice under a claims-made-and-reported policy, as opposed to an occurrence policy. In 2015, several cases have solidified this trend, and some of them actually extend ... Keep Reading »
Coverage Not Limited to Schedule of Locations in Fight Over Dam Liabilities
In C. Brewer & Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indem. Ins. Co. of Am., No. SCWC-28958 (Haw. Mar. 27, 2015), the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that liability coverage is not limited to only those locations defined in an insurer's schedule of locations. The court found that because a causal connection could be established between the negligent decisions of a business proprietor and the liabilities stemming from those decisions elsewhere, coverage could be applied irrespective of ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next Page »