Consistent with the majority of decisions in courts across the country, a number of Louisiana state and federal courts have recently held that COVID-19 does not cause physical loss or damage to property as required for coverage under most first-party property policies. In a summary judgment decision issued from the bench in Nite, Nite LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, a Louisiana state court considered whether the state government’s COVID-19 shutdown ... Keep Reading »
Florida Senate Passes Legislation to Reform Litigation for Property Insurance Claims
Toward the end of the 2021 Florida legislative session, the Florida Senate passed Senate Bill 76, a bill that focuses on reducing litigation related to property insurance claims and also places restrictions on companies soliciting insureds to file roof claims. At the heart of SB 76 is the implementation of a presuit requirement that any claimant (who is not an assignee of the policy) must provide written notice of intent to initiate litigation to the insurer at least ... Keep Reading »
No More Runway for Florida COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Lawsuit
Judge Raag Singhal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed with prejudice a COVID-19 business interruption insurance coverage lawsuit brought by the owners of Anthony's Runway 84 - a popular restaurant near the Fort Lauderdale airport. As this blog has reported previously, there has been a tidal wave of rulings in favor of insurers in COVID-19 business interruption insurance coverage lawsuits. With Judge Singhal's dismissal with ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Flags NFL Stadium Design and Construction as Intentional Conduct Resulting in Out of Bounds Claim for Occurrence Coverage
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that insurers did not have to defend a construction company from the San Francisco 49ers' claim that the company negligently failed to construct the NFL team's stadium to be accessible to all people with physical disabilities. In Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Turner/Devcon, the federal appellate court ruled that because the construction of the stadium was an intentional act, it did not constitute bodily injury or ... Keep Reading »
Delaware Courts Secure Limited Scope of “Securities Claims” in D&O Policies
The federal district court in Delaware recently ruled in Calamos Asset Management Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America that stockholder suits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with a merger do not constitute a "securities claim" in the context of D&O policies. This decision is another in a string of recent cases that have refused to expand that definition. The Merger and Subsequent Shareholder Litigation In December 2016, ... Keep Reading »
Beware the Honest Hacker: Indiana Supreme Court Finds That Bitcoin Payment Is Not Necessarily Covered Loss Under Commercial Crime Policy Because Not Every Ransomware Attack Involves Fraud
In G&G Oil Company of Indiana Inc. v. Continental Western Insurance Co., the Indiana Supreme Court considered the emerging area of computer crime coverage. G&G Oil was insured under a multi-peril commercial common insurance policy by Continental that provided commercial crime coverage. Specifically, the policy provided the following coverage provision: We will pay for loss or damage to "money," "securities" and "other property" resulting directly from the use ... Keep Reading »
Arizona Supreme Court Finds That Reasonableness of Insurer’s Refusal to Consent to Settlement Under D&O Policy Is in the Eye of the Insurer
In Apollo Education Group Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the reasonableness of the insurer’s decision to refuse to consent to settlement under a directors and officers policy is determined from the insurer’s perspective — not that of the insured. Apollo stems from a multimillion-dollar settlement following litigation surrounding an education company’s practice of backdating stock options for corporate ... Keep Reading »
Gluing Feathers to a Phone Does Not Make a Turkey: Seventh Circuit Finds Mere “Negligence” Label and “Stitched Together” Factual Allegations Do Not Trigger Duty to Defend Aggressive Robocall Lawsuit Under Illinois Law
In 2015, Ocwen Financial Corp. was sued for its attempts to collect on a mortgage loan that had been discharged in bankruptcy. It tendered the defense to Zurich American Insurance Co., but Zurich asserted that two exclusions precluded coverage and sought a declaration from a federal court that it had no duty to defend the underlying complaint. The district court agreed, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal. The underlying complaint alleged that Ocwen violated ... Keep Reading »
“Specific” Means “Specific” – Florida’s Bad Faith Statute Must Be Strictly Construed
The purpose of Florida’s “bad faith” statute is to “avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” To that end, the statute provides a civil remedy for any person damaged by an insurer’s conduct. However, as a condition precedent to filing suit, the policyholder must provide appropriate information to the Department of Insurance and the insurer by filing and serving a civil remedy notice (CRN). The CRN must specify the policyholder’s complaint and provide the insurer with a ... Keep Reading »
Texas Federal Court Finds No Coverage Under Crime Policy for Phishing Scheme Because Insured Did Not “Hold” Diverted Funds and Suffered No Direct Loss
RealPage was the victim of a phishing scheme that resulted in the diversion of its client funds from the bank account of a third-party payment processer, Stripe Inc. In the ensuing insurance coverage litigation styled RealPage Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, the court ultimately concluded that RealPage was not entitled to coverage for its loss because RealPage did not “hold” the diverted funds and because RealPage did not suffer a direct loss ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- …
- 48
- Next Page »