PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

AIG Won’t Have to Defend Carfax in $50 Million Antitrust Suit

March 19, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney

AIG Carfax Car Lot

On March 1, a New York appeals court ruled that American International Group, Inc. (AIG) need not defend Carfax, Inc. against a $50 million suit alleging the company monopolized the vehicle history report market. The decision affirmed the lower court’s determination that the matter did not fall within the insuring agreement and that, even if it did, it would be precluded from coverage based on the application of the policy’s antitrust exclusion. In May 2017, AIG ... Keep Reading »

‘Me Too’ Coverage Implications for Employers

March 9, 2018 by Jillian Orticelli

Sexual Harassment Complaint Form

When an employer negligently supervises an employee who commits separate acts of sexual harassment against three different co-workers on separate occasions, how many "occurrences" are there under a standard commercial general liability policy? The Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, considered this question in Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 16 CV 1570 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2017), and concluded that the answer is three. Three Times the Harassment In ... Keep Reading »

Dot the I’s and Cross the T’s: the Importance of Clarity in Claim Communications and the Availability of Punitive Damages for an Insurer’s Bad Faith Failure to Settle

March 2, 2018 by D. Barret Broussard

Jury

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently made waves in Hughes v. First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc., 343 Ga. App. 693 (2017). First, it aggrandized the role of a jury in determining the existence of an offer to settle a claim where the text of purported offer letters was not in dispute. Second, it subtly reminded litigants that punitive damages are available in a bad faith failure-to-settle claim where the claim sounded in tort and had not been ... Keep Reading »

Defining Indemnity in the Context Of Actual Cash Value Calculations

February 26, 2018 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and Jonathon C. Held, JS Held, LLC.

“The basic premise of traditional property insurance is the concept of indemnity. The insured who suffers a covered loss is entitled to receive full, but not more than full, value for the loss suffered, to be made whole but not be put in a better position than before the loss.” In re: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 872 F.3d 567, 573 (8th Cir. 2017). The concept of indemnification for loss is at the core of property insurance reimbursement. Insurance policies are ... Keep Reading »

When Relying on a Prior Acts Exclusion to Deny Coverage, Be Sure to Connect the Dots

February 26, 2018 by Benjamin Stearns

Bank Owned Real Estate Sign

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 16-16702 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that a “prior acts” exclusion in a D&O policy did not bar coverage where the insurer failed to prove a clear connection to events that occurred before inception of the insurance policy. As this case demonstrates, when an insurer relies on a prior acts exclusion to deny coverage, it not only must establish the wrongful ... Keep Reading »

Opening the Pandora’s Box of Flood Policies, or How Filing Suit Against Flood Insurers Can Effectively Reduce the Suit Limitations Period

February 16, 2018 by Jason Morris

When is an insurer’s “Rejection of Proof of Loss” letter for flood insurance damage, which states on its face that it “is not a denial of your claim,” nevertheless a written denial of claim? According to the Third Circuit in Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 17-1434 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018), the answer is whenever “the policyholder treats it as such by filing suit against the carrier.” If a flood policyholder treats a proof of loss rejection as a claim ... Keep Reading »

See Something, Say Something – Especially on Your Application for Insurance Coverage

February 9, 2018 by Nora Valenza-Frost

FBI Investigator

When is a misrepresentation material on an application for insurance coverage? The Ninth Circuit affirmed a decision from the Central District of California, finding that an answer on an application for D&O insurance was a material misrepresentation, and that therefore the policy was rescinded. The question on the application asked: None of the individuals to be insured under any Coverage Part (the “Insured Persons”) have a basis to believe that any wrongful act, ... Keep Reading »

Look Beneath the Surface: No Coverage for DC Row House Collapse Under Builder’s Risk Policy

February 2, 2018 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Row of Lego Houses

The interpretation of a property insurance policy may seem like a dull endeavor, but courts sometimes face fundamental questions about what words mean, or how we conceptualize cause and effect. In Taja Investments LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 16-1854 (4th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confronted both issues to determine that two exclusions in a builder’s risk policy applied to bar coverage for the collapse of a row house under renovation in ... Keep Reading »

No Coverage for Hole-In-One Contest, Says Fore-th Circuit Court of Appeals

January 26, 2018 by Gregory Gidus

Golf Tee

They say a bad day on the golf course is better than a good day at work. For Old White Charities, Inc., a non-profit that conducted a hole-in-one contest during the Greenbrier Classic Pro-Am golf tournament, this could not be further from the truth. In All Risks, Ltd. v. Old White Charities, Inc., No. 17-1180 (4th Cir. Dec. 20, 2017), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to insurers because Old White failed to satisfy the policy ... Keep Reading »

CGL Policies and Data Breaches: No Publication, No Coverage

December 21, 2017 by Amanda Proctor

Cyber Hacker

As cyber hacking and phishing schemes become more common, one issue that is often raised is whether, and to what extent, damages resulting from these incidents fall within the coverage afforded under a standard commercial general liability policy. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently addressed this issue Innovak Int'l, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., No. 8:16-CV-2453-MSS-JSS, (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2017), and held that a data breach was not ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • …
  • 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