PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Seventh Circuit Reverses Prior Ruling After Reexamining Exclusion Clause

October 2, 2019 by Kelley Godfrey

Sign that says Branch Closed in big red letters

After a panel rehearing, the Seventh Circuit in Emmis Communications Corp. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., No. 18-3392 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019), vacated a prior judgment and withdrew an opinion issued in July 2019, finding upon second review that Emmis Communications was entitled to summary judgment in its favor with regard to a breach of contract claim against Illinois National Insurance Co. The litigation involved Illinois National's denial of insurance coverage to ... Keep Reading »

Appraise Away Says Florida’s Fifth DCA

September 24, 2019 by Andrew Daechsel

Tug of war with rope with a stack of coins on top

Many homeowners insurance policies allow the insurer or the insured to invoke appraisal to resolve disagreements about the amount of the loss. Nonetheless, when one party invokes appraisal, the other party will sometimes refuse to participate in the process, forcing the party invoking appraisal to obtain a court order compelling the other party to participate. Fortunately, the recent decision in Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, ICAT Syndicate 4242 v. Sorgenfrei, No. ... Keep Reading »

Florida Court Holds It Was “Miscarriage of Justice” to Deny Insurer Award of Appellate Fees

September 18, 2019 by Daniel G. Enriquez

One hundred dollar bills lit on fire

Florida's offer of judgment statute, Florida Statutes section 768.79, is a common technique for any litigator who wants to place additional risk on the plaintiff. The statute provides that if a defendant in a civil suit files an offer of judgment that is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the date of filing if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the ... Keep Reading »

The Insurer’s Howler, or How Travelers Proved Its Insured’s Case

September 16, 2019 by D. Barret Broussard

Surfer falling off his board

What happens when an insurer presents evidence at trial that supports the insured's case? Answer: The evidence can be used to sustain the jury verdict for the insured-plaintiff. That is the lesson learned by Travelers in the Connecticut Supreme Court, despite: (1) Travelers' moving for directed verdict after the plaintiff's case-in-chief; (2) the trial court's reserving its ruling until after the defense's case; and (3) Travelers' renewing its motion for directed ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit Confirms: Rolling Trash Cans Are Not “Vehicles” as Common Sense Prevails Again

August 23, 2019 by Brendan Gooley

Trash Bin

In July 2018, we wrote about an interesting decision out of the Southern District of New York in which a court rejected a claim that an exclusion did not apply because a recycling bin on wheels was a "vehicle" under the applicable "all risks" insurance policy. We described the district court's decision that the glorified trash can was not a "vehicle" as a victory for common sense over a claim based on a hypertechnical definition. The Second Circuit has now affirmed ... Keep Reading »

War of the Words: Ninth Circuit Reverses Judgment for the Insurer in Rare War Exclusion Case

August 16, 2019 by Roben West

Clapper Board against Brick Wall

In Universal Cable Prods. LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., 2:16 cv-04435 PA, (9th Cir. July 12, 2019), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s determinations as it relates to the application of two war exclusions. In the summer of 2014, Universal Cable Productions was filming a television series, Dig, in Jerusalem.  During filming, hostilities arose in the region as Hamas, a Palestinian political movement, began firing rockets from Gaza into Israel.  The ... Keep Reading »

New York’s Highest Court Holds Untimely Disclosure Is Not an Untimely Disclaimer

August 9, 2019 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Construction Workers Disagreement

The defendant, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC (PCIC), is a risk retention group charted in Montana and doing business in New York. PCIC issued a CGL policy naming defendant Nadkos Inc. as an additional insured for liability related to the ongoing operations of the subcontractor and other members of the risk retention group. PCIC disclaimed coverage for Nadkos for an underlying personal injury action by an employee of Nadkos' ... Keep Reading »

When Should an Insurer Deny Coverage? The Second Circuit Provides Guidance on What Constitutes a Reasonable Time by Which to Deny Coverage Under New York Law

July 26, 2019 by Amanda Proctor

Semi-Truck Accident Crash

Under New York law, a liability insurer is required to deny coverage for bodily injury resulting from an auto accident “as soon as is reasonably possible.” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(d)(2). The Second Circuit recently shed light on what constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of this statute in United Financial Casualty Co. v. Country-Wide Insurance Co., No. 18-3022 (2d Cir. July 1, 2019). In that case, Juan Pineda was involved in a three-vehicle accident while ... Keep Reading »

Colorado Federal Court Rejects Attorney-Client Privilege for Communications Between Insurer’s Claims Adjuster and In-House Counsel

July 23, 2019 by Christina Gallo

Secret Whisper Privacy

In Olsen v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 1:18-cv-01665, 2019 WL 2502201 (D. Colo. June 17, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine protected documents containing communications between the insurer's claims adjuster and its in-house counsel, where such documents did not contain legal advice or the insurer's strategy for defending against the civil action. In this case, the ... Keep Reading »

New York State Court Affirms All-Sums Allocation Method

June 28, 2019 by Rachel Schwartz

Danger: Asbestos Hazard

A New York state court explored the proper allocation method for insurance policies with non-cumulation clauses covering asbestos exposure loss occurring over the course of multiple successive policy periods in In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Co. At issue were four excess policies issued by Midland to ASARCO LLC, which, through one of its subsidiaries, engaged in the selling of asbestos products. A series of asbestos claims against ASACRO ensued, and ASARCO sought ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • …
  • 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