PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Texas Federal Court Finds Law Firm’s Alleged 40,000 Unauthorized Claims Related to Deepwater Horizon Disaster Were Not “Professional Services” Triggering Duty to Defend

June 11, 2021 by Benjamin Stearns

A boat traversing an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

The Southern District of Texas held that New York Marine and General Insurance Co. had no duty to defend its insured under a legal professional malpractice insurance policy for claims stemming from the firm's efforts to develop business in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. In the underlying litigation (the Nguyen litigation), a group of 439 Vietnamese Americans brought claims against the law firm, alleging that the firm targeted Vietnamese American fishermen ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Finds Refusal to Accept a Demand, Without More, Is Not a “Claim” Under Policy

June 4, 2021 by Christina Gallo

Handing money over in an offering

On April 9, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co. need not provide coverage for Alorica Inc.’s loss from a 2018 phishing attack because the letter received from Alorica regarding the incident did not constitute a “claim” under Starr’s policy. The policy defined a “claim” as a “written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief.” Alorica contended that a letter from Express Scripts to Alorica, ... Keep Reading »

Colorado Federal Court Finds “Kona” Class Actions Did Not Trigger “Personal and Advertising Injury” Insuring Agreement

May 25, 2021 by Alex B. Silverman

Kona Hawaii Coffee

A Colorado federal court relieved the Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America of any obligation to defend or indemnify two putative class actions, finding neither action implicated the insuring agreement for "personal and advertising injury" contained in several Travelers commercial liability policies. The Underlying Actions Two underlying class actions were filed in Washington federal court against various coffee ... Keep Reading »

Consistent With Nationwide Trend, Recent Decisions Applying Louisiana Law Find COVID-19 Does Not Cause Physical Loss or Damage

May 14, 2021 by Alex M. Bein

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

May 6, 2021 by Carlton Fields

photo of rooftops

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

April 30, 2021 by Andrew Daechsel

Airport Runway

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

April 27, 2021 by Novera H. Ahmad

San Francisco Football Stadium

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

April 23, 2021 by Chael Clark

Securities

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

April 16, 2021 by J. Kent Crocker

Computer Hacker Cyber Attack

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

April 2, 2021 by Roben West

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 »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • …
  • 48
  • 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

  • Florida District Court Orders New Trial After Jury Allowed to Hear Evidence on Claim Handling in Insurance Breach of Contract Claim
  • Sixth Circuit Finds No E&O Coverage for GL Carrier Under E&O Policy for Underlying Motel Claim
  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim

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