PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss

August 7, 2020 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

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

For going on five months, the United States has been dealing with the difficult impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted daily lives and sometimes devastated businesses. In looking for sources of economic recovery, businesses want to turn to their commercial property policies, but, as this blog has explained, these policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be "direct physical loss of or damage" to the insured ... Keep Reading »

Federal Puerto Rico Court Affirms That Coverage Under Claims-Made Policy Is Not Created by Waiver or Estoppel

July 31, 2020 by J. Kent Crocker

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico recently granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty International Underwriters after determining that coverage was not created by waiver or estoppel for a claim first made six months before the policy period of a claims-made policy. In Galarza-Cruz v. Grupo Hima San Pablo Inc., the plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including the insured and Liberty, in connection with various claims under Title VII and multiple ... Keep Reading »

Don’t Lead Me On: Georgia Court of Appeals Finds Insurance Company Did Not Mislead Insured and Therefore Did Not Waive Policy’s Suit Limitation Provision

July 24, 2020 by Chael Clark

Ophthalmology Eye Doctor Equipment

Insurance policies often contain "limitation-of-action" or suit limitation provisions, which contractually reduce the statute of limitations for an insured to assert a claim against an insurer. Depending on the state, such provisions can be enforceable because, as a general matter, parties are free to contract on whatever terms they wish, so long as they do not violate a particular statute or public policy. However, there are certain circumstances under which an insurer ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under Advertising Liability Policy for Walmart’s Floor Display of Goods and Services Supplied by Insured Apparel Vendor

July 13, 2020 by Benjamin Stearns

Walmart Grocery Store Retail Cart

In Hybrid Promotions LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that an advertising liability policy issued to Hybrid did not apply to an advertising "arrangement" created by Walmart's placement of Hybrid's goods and signage in close proximity to signage created by the underlying claimant MMA Elite. Hybrid Promotions LLC supplied Walmart with apparel and associated display racks and signage. Pursuant to its agreement with Walmart, ... Keep Reading »

Seventh Circuit Rejects Insured’s “Claim Within a Claim” Argument

July 1, 2020 by Roben West

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently had occasion to clarify the parameters of a “claim” in insurance policies. In Market Street Bancshares Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., Judge Kanne penned an opinion holding that a legal argument appearing in an already uncovered “claim” cannot itself constitute a “claim” for purposes of liability policies. This insurance coverage dispute involved an almost two-decade-long underlying lawsuit against the insured, a bank, long ... Keep Reading »

Iowa Supreme Court Finds Fatality Allegedly Caused by Gross Negligence Was a Potential “Accident” Under CGL Policy

June 22, 2020 by Alex B. Silverman

Coverage under most commercial general liability (CGL) policies applies only to liability arising from an “accident.” As such, injury or damage that an insured “expected or intended” to occur is not covered. But whether an insured subjectively intended to cause injury may be difficult to determine, even when the conduct itself was clearly intentional. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Iowa, the court examined a related, if not potentially more difficult, ... Keep Reading »

Florida Court Determines Insurer Did Not Waive Right to Appraisal in Hurricane Irma Claim Brought by Homeowners

June 12, 2020 by Carlton Fields

Hurricane Irma

Various homeowner’s insurance policies contain an appraisal clause that a carrier or insured may invoke in situations where there is a dispute in damages between the parties. However, a court may determine that a party who is seeking to invoke an appraisal clause has waived its right to appraisal by not invoking the appraisal clause timely, or by taking actions inconsistent with appraisal in litigation. In a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, People’s Trust ... Keep Reading »

A Case of Mass Listeria: Insurer’s Duty to Defend in New Jersey Contaminated Pizza Crusts Suit

June 5, 2020 by Chael Clark

Last week, in Conte’s Pasta Co. v. Republic Franklin Insurance Co., a New Jersey federal court ruled that Republic Franklin Insurance Co. was obligated to indemnify Conte’s Pasta for the costs incurred defending against a suit brought by one of its customers, Nature’s One, for damages related to listeria contamination in its gluten-free pizza crusts. Underlying Litigation In early 2017, Nature’s One contracted with Conte’s Pasta to manufacture gluten-free pizza ... Keep Reading »

Two Early Rulings in Favor of Insurers in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Litigation

May 22, 2020 by Andrew Daechsel

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued two of the first substantive rulings in COVID-19-related insurance coverage lawsuits. Both rulings were in favor of insurers. Southern District of New York Indicates COVID-19 Does Not Cause Direct Physical Loss or Damage, As Needed to Trigger Business Interruption Coverage In Social Life Magazine Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co., an ongoing lawsuit, the ... Keep Reading »

Years of Embezzlement Precluded From Coverage Under E&O Policy’s Commingling Exclusion

May 15, 2020 by Kelley Godfrey

A federal district court in North Dakota recently granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss in Campbell Property Management LLC v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 3624, finding that both prongs of a “commingling exclusion” to coverage applied. The court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and bad faith claims asserted by Campbell Property Management, finding that there was no coverage for the subject acts, and thus there could be no bad faith. Lloyd’s issued ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • …
  • 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

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • 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

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