In Wolf v. Riverport Insurance Co., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s holding, under Illinois law, that an underinsured motorist insurer did not breach its insurance contract, and no implied duty of good faith and fair dealing was implicated, where the insurer resolved the claimant’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits after negotiating with the claimant for four years. The claimant suffered multiple pelvic fractures as a result ... Keep Reading »
New York Federal Court Enforces Exclusion Barring Coverage for Claims Based on Any Misrepresentation, Regardless of Perceived Materiality
When state law provides that an insurance contract can be rescinded for misrepresentations only if they are “material,” can an insurer contract around that rule by adding an exclusion for all claims based on any misrepresentation, regardless of materiality? The Southern District of New York says “yes” in Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Beach Cruiser LLC. The insureds were the owner and property manager of various rental properties, including a house in downtown ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Holds Course of Construction Exclusion Applies to Water Damage as Project Was Not Fully Complete
In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Kaufman Lynn Construction Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a “course of construction exclusion” in a commercial general liability precluded coverage for water damage caused by a hurricane during a construction project. However, the court found that the insured had standing to assert a claim for reformation of the insurance policy due to mutual mistake, even though the insured was not necessarily making a claim ... Keep Reading »
California Appellate Court Agrees Marijuana Delivery Driver’s Accident Not Covered Under Personal Auto Policy
A California Court of Appeals decision brought one auto policyholder decidedly down from “cloud nine” in Murphy v. AAA Auto Insurance of Southern California, which found no coverage over a cannabis delivery service employee’s collision in a personal vehicle while on the job. The court ruled the “compensated carrying exclusion” barred coverage, holding it was neither ambiguous nor contrary to public policy in this instance. The insured, Andrew Murphy, was a full-time ... Keep Reading »
Recent Denial of Business Interruption Coverage to Cannabis Manufacturer Highlights Importance of Diving Into the Weeds of Insured’s Business Practices
In Theraplant LLC v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the insured cannabis cultivator’s claim for business interruption coverage because the insured failed to demonstrate a causal link between its loss and the suspension of its operations. The insured, Theraplant, suffered a loss when a fire at its facility in Watertown destroyed 998 marijuana plants and damaged one of seven flowering rooms. After ... Keep Reading »
A Bridge Too Far: Pennsylvania Federal Court Declines to Extend Coverage Beyond Policy’s Plain and Unambiguous Terms
It’s apt to name a blog post after one of history’s great action movies when the case involves a “conceptual artillery duel” that “ends in a draw,” and that is exactly how U.S. District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania described the parties’ conflicting textual interpretations in KMS Development Partners LP v. Federal Insurance Co. Keep reading to find out why the insured’s hyper-technical interpretation of the phrase “Forgery or ... Keep Reading »
Square Peg, Round Hole: 6th Circuit Affirms Finding That Cyber Claims Are Not Covered by CGL Policies
In Home Depot Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Co., Home Depot learned the hard way a rule every DIY enthusiast knows: measure twice, cut once. It appears Home Depot’s measurements were off when it sized up its insurance needs, and when its cyber coverage didn’t measure up to the costs of a data breach, the company tried to fit those cyber claims into its commercial general liability (CGL) policies. However, the Sixth Circuit ruled that those claims do not fit within the ... Keep Reading »
California Appellate Court Rules Wildfire Debris Does Not Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss” Under Homeowners Insurance Policy
The Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a lower court ruling that wildfire debris on an insured’s property did not qualify as “direct physical loss” within the meaning of a homeowners insurance policy, as there was no burn damage to the property. The ruling, Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co., is especially noteworthy given its potential impact on insurance claims stemming from the 2025 Los Angeles ... Keep Reading »
Texas Supreme Court Holds $220M Settlement Agreement Is Not Binding on Insurers Without Insurer’s Consent Where Insured Faced No Liability Beyond Non-Insurance Assets
In In re Illinois National Insurance Co., the Texas Supreme Court held that disclaiming insurers were not bound by any underlying settlement agreement, entered into without the insurers’ consent, where the claimants promised not to pursue the insured’s non-insurance assets. The underlying claimants were investment funds that filed suit in 2014 against Cobalt International Energy and its officers and directors. The claimants asserted securities fraud in connection with ... Keep Reading »
Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Toxic Dust From Wildfire Is Not “Pollutant” Under Policy’s Pollution Exclusion
In Wesco Insurance Co. v. Brad Ingram Construction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Wesco Insurance Co. after a split panel concluded that toxic dust and debris from a wildfire did not fall under the policy’s definition of “pollutant.” Background and Underlying Action The plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit, Richard Vargas, was allegedly exposed to toxic dust while loading and unloading his work truck during the ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 48
- Next Page »