PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

A Bridge Too Far: Pennsylvania Federal Court Declines to Extend Coverage Beyond Policy’s Plain and Unambiguous Terms

February 28, 2025 by David McConnell

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

February 24, 2025 by David McConnell

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

February 14, 2025 by Novera H. Ahmad

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

March 26, 2024 by Lauren Silk

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

February 26, 2024 by Madison E. Wahler

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 »

New Jersey Court Holds Primary Home Insurer Must Cover Dog Bite Injury at Insured’s Second Home

February 20, 2024 by Novera H. Ahmad

In Berardi v. FMI Insurance Co., a panel of New Jersey’s Superior Court, Appellate Decision, affirmed a lower court’s ruling, which ordered a primary home insurer to defend its insured in a dog bite lawsuit, stemming from alleged injuries sustained by a house cleaner at the insured’s secondary home. Background and Underlying Action The plaintiffs, Anthony and Janet Berardi, own a primary residence in Sparta, New York, along with a second home in Montauk, New York. ... Keep Reading »

Tenth Circuit Upholds Clear and Unambiguous ATV Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

February 16, 2024 by Miguel Rodriguez

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that an insurer’s homeowners policy all-terrain vehicle exclusion barred coverage for a Utah insured’s injuries that did not occur at the “insured location.” The case, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cleaver, involved a claim arising out of injuries sustained by minor E.C. while riding an ATV on an unpaved, county-owned public road from a nearby gravel pit back to the insured’s home, which was insured by ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit Warns Insurers of Risks of Forgoing Discovery

January 30, 2024 by Julia Duffy

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently found an insurer’s decision to waive discovery foreclosed its ability to provide extrinsic evidence to resolve an ambiguous insurance policy. In Ezrasons Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., the insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Co., had refused to indemnify its insured, Ezrasons Inc., for the full policy limit because it contended the loss did not occur at an “approved location” under the policy. The Second Circuit ultimately ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit Weighs in on Scope of Business Enterprise Exclusion, Finds It Bars Coverage for Legal Malpractice Suit

January 10, 2024 by Amanda Proctor

Directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies often contain “capacity” limitations, which restrict coverage to claims against the insured alleging acts undertaken by the insured in his or her insured capacity. These insured capacity limitations can take on different forms. For example, the policy may limit the definition of an “insured person” to someone acting in his or her capacity as an officer or director of the insured company. Or the ... Keep Reading »

New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies Meaning of “Wrongful Eviction” in Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Section of Standard CGL Policy

January 8, 2024 by Alex M. Bein

In Watford Specialty Insurance Co. v. MDF 92 River Street LLC, the New Jersey Appellate Division clarified that the term “wrongful eviction” in the insuring agreement of a commercial general liability policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage section contemplates eviction from a place where the individual has a possessory interest or right of private occupancy. In that case, insurer Watford Specialty Insurance Co. issued a commercial general liability policy ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 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