PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

New York First Department Clarifies Effect of New York Insurance Law Section 3420 on Claims-Made-and-Reported Policies

February 19, 2021 by Alex M. Bein

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Advance Transit Co., a New York appellate court provided valuable clarity into how New York Insurance Law section 3420 applies to claims-made-and-reported insurance policies. Underwriters issued a claims-made-and-reported liability policy to Advance Transit Co., effective October 30, 2016, to October 30, 2017. The policy provided that if it were renewed, Advance would have an additional 60 days after the expiration of the ... Keep Reading »

Florida Supreme Court Defines Damages Recoverable by First-Party Insureds in Actions Alleging Breach of Policy

February 5, 2021 by Jeffrey Michael Cohen

damages, court

In Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Manor House, LLC, the Florida Supreme Court recently answered “no” to the following question certified as a matter of “great public importance”: In a first-party breach of insurance contract action brought by an insured against its insurer, not involving suit under section 624.155, Florida Statutes, does Florida law allow the insured to recover extra-contractual, consequential damages? The case involved a dispute over property ... Keep Reading »

Florida Appellate Court Determines Faulty Workmanship Exclusion in Homeowner’s Policy Is Not Ambiguous and Thus Damage Caused by Contractor’s Conduct Is Not a Covered Loss

February 3, 2021 by Carlton Fields

In Saunders v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., a Florida appellate court recently determined whether a faulty workmanship exclusion in a homeowner’s policy applied to a property loss caused by a contractor. The insured, Veronica Saunders, hired a contractor to install a new addition to her home, which was insured by Florida Peninsula Insurance Co. During the construction process, the contractor took off a portion of the roof and only covered the exposed area with ... Keep Reading »

Outlier Decision of New York Appellate Court Denies Insurer’s Right to Recoup Defense Costs Even Though Court Found No Duty to Indemnify

January 29, 2021 by Charles W. Stotter

Recoupment of defense costs (defense fees and costs) by insurers in the absence of a duty to indemnify under a liability policy is an unsettled issue in many states. In a recent decision, a New York intermediate appellate court held that even though there was no duty to indemnify an underlying personal injury action under a CGL policy, the insurer could not recoup the defense costs it had advanced under a reservation of rights (ROR) letter where the policy at issue ... Keep Reading »

Florida Judges Find COVID-19 Does Not Cause Direct Physical Loss or Damage

January 22, 2021 by Andrew Daechsel

Man hanging a sign on a restaurant door that says, "Closed due to Coronavirus"

The tidal wave of favorable rulings for insurers in COVID-19 business interruption insurance coverage lawsuits that started in 2020 is continuing in 2021. As this blog has previously explained, commercial property insurance policies generally require “direct physical loss of or damage to” the insured property to trigger business interruption coverage. In some COVID-19 business interruption insurance lawsuits, policyholders have alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on ... Keep Reading »

New York Supreme Court Allows Paint Company to Pursue Coverage for $102M Lead Paint Settlement

January 15, 2021 by Novera H. Ahmad

painting

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries Inc., a New York Supreme Court recently ruled that paint maker NL Industries Inc. may seek insurance coverage for its almost $102 million share of a settlement, stemming from a suit over the negative impact of the use of its lead-based paint in California homes and buildings. A Case 20 Years in the Making The underlying suit was first filed in 2000 by certain California counties that sought to hold a number of ... Keep Reading »

Missouri Federal Court Finds New York Choice-of-Law Provision Does Not Inhibit Insured’s Assertion of Missouri-Specific Public Policy Statute Violation

January 6, 2021 by Roben West

In Maritz Holdings Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, a federal court in Missouri denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s assertion of a vexatious refusal to pay claim based on an obscure Missouri-specific public policy statute, despite the court’s acknowledgment that the subject insurance contracts were governed by their New York choice-of-law provisions. This insurance coverage dispute stemmed from alleged losses following two separate ... Keep Reading »

Texas Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Civil Authority Orders Issued in Preparation for Hurricane Harvey Because They Were Not Issued as a Result of Physical Loss or Property Damage

December 18, 2020 by J. Kent Crocker

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in the matter of Evanston Ins. Co. v. AmSpec Holding Corp., granted summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Company (“Evanston”) after determining no coverage was available under a property insurance policy for Civil Authority Orders issued by the Coast Guard. No. 4:19-CV-1498, 2020 WL 6152190 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2020). AmSpec Holding Corporation (“AmSpec”) performs testing and inspection ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Supreme Court Finds That Appraisal Proceedings Are Not a “Securities Claim,” Again Refusing To Broaden That Definition in the Context of D&O Policies

December 11, 2020 by Chael Clark

Car Crash Test Dummy

We previously discussed the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to broaden the definition of a "securities claim" in In re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals, and this issue continues to be ripe for dispute. The Delaware Supreme Court took another look at what constitutes a "securities claim" in In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, Nos. 413, 2019; 418, 2019 (Del Oct. 23, 2020), where it considered as a matter of national first impression the question of whether ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Applies Willful Violation of Law Exclusion in Professional Liability Policy To Preclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Lawsuit Stemming From Doctor’s Unlawful Distribution of Fentanyl

December 4, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

In National Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Hampton, No. 19-17235 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that a doctor’s guilty plea to the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance barred insurance coverage under his professional liability policy for a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit resulting from a patient’s overdose. According to the Ninth Circuit, the doctor’s admission that he intentionally distributed fentanyl clearly implicated the ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • …
  • 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

  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Judgment Dismissing Bad Faith Claim Without Viable Breach of Contract Claim
  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Broad Reading of CGL Policy’s “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” to Include EMF Radiation
  • Iowa Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule That Faulty Workmanship Is Not an Occurrence, Leaving Question of Statutory Fraud for Another Day

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