PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Georgia Federal Court Rules on Questions of Efficient Proximate Cause, Manifestation/Continuous Trigger and Pro Rata Allocation of Damages

October 6, 2017 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and Nancy Faggianelli

Corroded Metal Building

In ACE American Ins. Co. v. Exide Technologies, Inc. and The Wattles Co., No. 1:16-CV-1600-MHC (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2017), the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia applied a continuous trigger theory to an all risk property policy and declined to allocate damage, resulting in a single first-party property carrier being responsible for several years of damage. This case demonstrates that courts in some jurisdictions may require that policy language ... Keep Reading »

Navigating Florida Property Coverage Waters After Hurricane Irma

September 22, 2017 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and James Chin

Hurricane Irma

As the waters recede from Hurricane Irma, there are many issues for property insurers to consider as they adjust claims in Florida, including unique issues raised by assignment of benefits, Florida law on concurrent causation, and time element considerations. Assignment of Benefits An assignment of benefits (AOB) is a legal tool that allows a third party to be paid for services performed for an insured property owner who would normally be paid or reimbursed by the ... Keep Reading »

Third Circuit Clarifies Abstention Doctrine in Insurance Coverage Declaratory Action

September 1, 2017 by Alex B. Silverman

Drunk Driving Car Accident

Insurers looking to remove declaratory judgment actions to courts in the Third Circuit were recently given some clarity — and, for one defendant insurer, a welcome reversal. On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania abused its discretion by applying an overly broad definition of what constitutes a “parallel proceeding” in determining whether to abstain from hearing an action under the Declaratory Judgment ... Keep Reading »

Texas Appeals Court affirms Class Certification in Case Alleging Roofer Violated Insurance Code

August 28, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

House Flooding

Texas homeowners Joe and Stacci Key sued their roofer, Lon Smith Roofing Contractors (“LSRC”), alleging LSRC violated the Texas Insurance Code by acting as an unlicensed public insurance adjustor. The trial court granted class certification, and LSRC sought interlocutory review. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed in a case captioned Lon Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Key, No. 02-15-00328-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017). When it Hails… The Keys retained LSRC to make ... Keep Reading »

The Privilege Maintains Its Power: Texas Supreme Court Blocks Discovery of Insurer Attorney’s Billing Information

August 11, 2017 by Amanda Proctor

An insurers’ attorney invoices do not become discoverable just because they are challenging an insured’s claim for attorneys’ fees.

When (if ever) are an insurer’s attorney’s fees and billing information discoverable in a coverage dispute? Though the question is straightforward, the answer can vary from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court recently weighed in on the issue and found that an insurer’s attorney-billing information is not discoverable merely because the insurer challenges the insured’s request for attorney’s fees in coverage litigation. See In re Nat'l ... Keep Reading »

District Courts Buck Trend on Fidelity Coverage for Social Engineering and Business Email Compromise Schemes

August 4, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Cyber Crime Hacker

The FBI continues to warn that losses are on the rise from business email compromise (BEC) or “social engineering” schemes, which the Bureau describes as: Carried out by transnational criminal organizations that employ lawyers, linguists, hackers, and social engineers, BEC can take a variety of forms. But in just about every case, the scammers target employees with access to company finances and trick them into making wire transfers to bank accounts thought to belong to ... Keep Reading »

“Arising” tide for insurers: 11th Circuit takes expansive view of Prior Acts Exclusion

July 28, 2017 by Daniel G. Enriquez

National Bank & Trust

Claims-made policies often cover acts that occur before a policy period, so long as they result in a covered claim during the policy period. This is a fundamental difference between claims-made and occurrence policies. But the retroactive scope of a claims-made policy is not limitless. Many claims-made policies contain 'retroactive dates' that cut off an insurer's liability for occurrences before that date. Financial lines claims - as opposed to bodily injury or ... Keep Reading »

New York’s High Court Holds Additional Insured Coverage Extends Only to Injuries Proximately Caused by Named Insured’s Fault

July 21, 2017 by Gabriella Paglieri

Subway MTA Excavation

On June 6, the New York Court of Appeals in Burlington Insurance Co. v. NYC Transit Authority held that where liability is limited to injuries “caused, in whole or in part” by the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” coverage extends only to those injuries proximately caused by, not just causally linked to, the named insured’s actions or omissions. The 4-2 decision reversed the intermediate appellate court’s (Appellate Division, First Department) holding that under such ... Keep Reading »

Washington Federal Court Rejects Policyholder’s “Separate Claim” Argument

July 14, 2017 by Jason Morris

Real Estate Classified Ad

In April, a federal district court in the Western District of Washington issued a decision in National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Zillow, Inc. While at first blush, it may seem only of interest to those who work with media policies, this decision has potential broader application. In short, the decision rejects the argument that a demand letter and subsequent litigation based on the facts asserted in the demand letter are separate claims and thus should be treated as ... Keep Reading »

Poisoning the Well: Washington Supreme Court Applies Efficient Proximate Cause to Eviscerate Pollution Exclusion in Liability Policy

July 7, 2017 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Gas Mask

Professionals and practitioners in first party property insurance are likely familiar with the efficient proximate cause rule, which requires an insurance policy to provide coverage where "a covered peril sets in motion a causal chain," even if subsequent causes-in-fact of the loss are excluded by the policy. As indicated by our previous coverage [1, 2, 3] of this doctrine, this can be a confusing analysis that leads to unpredictable results. Until recently, the ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • …
  • 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