PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for General Liability

General Liability

Down in the Dumps: Court Refuses to Apply Pollution Exclusion in Landfill Seepage Case

March 25, 2015 by Stephen J. Bagge

Picture of a Landfill

Claims involving potential coverage for pollution liability pose unique challenges for insurers. In many cases, the polluting activity occurred decades ago and over a large span of time, with only a fraction of the activity occurring during the policy period. As a result, an issue in pollution liability cases is whether an insurer is obligated to indemnify an insured for the entire amount of damages resulting from pollution, or whether an insurer's obligation may be ... Keep Reading »

Insurance is Big in Texas: In Deepwater Horizon Case, Texas Stretches a Policy’s Four Corners to Include Other Contracts

March 4, 2015 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Picture of Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling unit

Last month, in In re Deepwater Horizon, Relator, the Supreme Court of Texas applied a fundamental principle of insurance law to a case with enormous financial implications.  The owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig had made BP an additional insured under its liability policies, but it did so pursuant to a drilling contract in which BP had agreed to be responsible for some of the losses those policies covered.  When BP submitted a claim, therefore, a court had to ... Keep Reading »

Rumors of Revival Were Greatly Exaggerated: Fifth Circuit Reverses Opinion on Contractual Liability Exclusion

January 15, 2015 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Picture of the Bust of Janus at the Vatican Museum

We previously discussed the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 11-10166 (5th Cir June 27, 2014)—an opinion that seemed to revive the contractual liability exclusion by distinguishing a landmark Texas decision that had narrowed the exclusion's scope.  That was then.  Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew that order and issued a new opinion on rehearing.  The new opinion ... Keep Reading »

A DJ is a Sometime Thing: In Declaratory Judgment Actions Over Coverage, the Sixth Circuit Gives Trial Courts a Wide Berth

December 23, 2014 by John W. Herrington

Picture of a Horse Carriage

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, gives federal district courts "unique and substantial discretion" over whether to hear suits seeking a declaration of rights.  Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995).  To guide the exercise of that discretion, Courts of Appeals have created lists of relevant considerations—most of which were borrowed from Moore's Federal Practice.  See Reifer v. Westport Ins. Co., 751 F.3d 129, 145 n.20 (3d Cir. 2014) ... Keep Reading »

Like Hats and Belt Buckles, Indemnity Agreements in Texas Must be CONSPICUOUS

December 18, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of Peacock

It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety. –Isaac Asimov Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Texas law allows an indemnity agreement to insulate a party from the consequences of its own, allegedly negligent conduct, but only if that feature of the agreement is disclosed conspicuously.  In Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. v. Kellogg Brown  & Root, Inc., No. 13-3027 (10th Cir. Dec. 9, ... Keep Reading »

Partial Recall: Product Contamination Coverage Has Its Limits

December 5, 2014 by Zachary D. Ludens and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of Sausage Biscuit

In disputes over the scope of liability coverage, courts must often draw a line between (1) providing insurance against errors that harm others and (2) broadly guaranteeing the work product of the insured.  The problem is most obvious in construction cases, when claims against the insureds arise from their own faulty workmanship. Recently, it has also emerged in connection with the food and drug industries.  Last month, in Hot Stuff Foods, LLC v. Houston Casualty Co. ... Keep Reading »

Et tu, Buddy?: When Excess Insurers Sue for Bad Faith

December 3, 2014 by Daniel G. Enriquez

Picture of Comic History of Rome

Insurers don’t, as a rule, like bad faith suits.  But life can play funny tricks—as when a judgment against an insured breaches a layer of excess coverage, because the primary carrier failed to settle within its policy limits.  In those circumstances, a number of jurisdictions hold that the excess carrier is subrogated to the insured’s right to sue the primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle.  Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co., 76 Cal App. 3d 1031 ... Keep Reading »

Apartment Complexity: Appellate Court Sorts Out Multiple Coverage Claims for Construction of Uninhabitable Residence

November 25, 2014 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Picture of a Haunted House

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 »

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)

October 23, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of a Running Spigot

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 »

Cut! Eighth Circuit Excludes Non-Board Member from CGL Coverage for “Directors”

October 9, 2014 by Patricia H. Thompson

Picture of Bert Glennon and John Ford on the set of Stagecoach

Directors and Officers liability policies are typically precise in defining the job descriptions of the individuals to whom they offer coverage.  Recently, in United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, No. 13-2352 (8th Cir. July 11, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had to decide whether the term "director," which was left undefined in a corporation's Commercial General Liability policy, could apply to a supervisory employee, whom one party ... Keep Reading »

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