PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

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 »

WV Court Rules Earth Movement Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage Regardless of Whether Landslide Was a Man-Made or Naturally-Occurring Event

June 30, 2017 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, No. 16-0490 (W. Va. June 1, 2017), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a lower court’s decision, holding that damage caused by a landslide was excluded, regardless of whether the landslide resulted from excavations or naturally occurred, where the policy excluded loss whether such loss is “caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused.” The court went on to follow the law of other ... Keep Reading »

One Way Out: California District Court Finds Insurer Had Right to Pay Limits Despite Possible Defense

June 23, 2017 by Ricardo Rozen

In Film Allman, LLC v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company, Inc., 2:14-cv-7069-ODW, (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2017), a California district court granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer of a production company. The court found no breach and no extra-contractual damages were warranted because the insurer paid full policy limits to settle the claims. Midnight Rider The insurance coverage dispute arose after production company Film Allman, LLC was sued as a ... Keep Reading »

Shot Through the Heart, But the Excess Carrier Isn’t to Blame: Georgia Federal Court Finds Policy’s Broad Firearms Exclusion Bars Coverage

June 16, 2017 by Christopher B. Freeman and Meredith Whigham Caiafa

On June 1, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of AIG Specialty Insurance Co. in a case involving the application of the firearms exclusion in Powe v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01336. The court dismissed the case, in which claimant Christopher Powe sought the remaining $3 million of a $4 million settlement against the insureds, property management company HMI Property Solutions, Inc. ... Keep Reading »

Fifth Circuit Reverses Mississippi District Court’s Interpretation of “Ambiguous” Language to Nullify Defense Within Limits Coverage

June 9, 2017 by John W. Herrington

Insurance policies that include the cost of defending a particular claim or action within the policy’s limit of liability, often referred to as “burning,” “eroding,” or “defense within” limits policies, are common in the management liability insurance market. As we previously reported, a 2015 United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi decision cast a cloud of doubt over liability insurers issuing defense within limits policies in Mississippi ... Keep Reading »

Connecticut Appellate Court Addresses Trigger, Allocation, Exclusions, and Other Issues of First Impression in Coverage Litigation Over Long-Latency Asbestos Injury Cases

June 2, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Connecticut’s intermediate appellate court addressed a number of novel issues in a wide-ranging opinion regarding primary and excess insurers’ respective duties to defend and indemnify their common insured for long-tail asbestos-related injury claims. The opinion was rendered unanimously and authored collectively by the three-judge panel of Robert Beach, Douglas Lavine, and Stuart Bear (ret.). The case, styled R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Deems Voluntary Dismissal of a Coverage Action Sufficient to Award Attorneys’ Fees to a Policyholder as the Prevailing Party

May 19, 2017 by Aaron S. Weiss

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that should serve as a warning to insurers to be sure to resolve all issues before dismissing a coverage action, particularly when involved in the settlement of an underlying suit. A Tale of Two Cases In W&J Group Enterprises, Inc. v. Houston Specialty Ins. Co., No. 16-15625 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2017), the insurance carrier filed a declaratory action against its policyholder in the Middle ... Keep Reading »

Multiple Instances of Defectively Designed, Manufactured, or Installed Windows Does Multiple Occurrences Make

May 12, 2017 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Damaged Windows

After previously holding that various claims against the insured, Pella, alleged property damage caused by an “occurrence,” thus triggering Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Liberty”) coverage obligations under various CGL policies, in Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 4:11-cv-00273 (S.D. Mar. 31, 2017), the Southern District of Iowa was then tasked with determining the number of “occurrences.” Pella purchased annual liability policies – CGL policies (with ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • …
  • 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

  • Florida District Court Orders New Trial After Jury Allowed to Hear Evidence on Claim Handling in Insurance Breach of Contract Claim
  • Sixth Circuit Finds No E&O Coverage for GL Carrier Under E&O Policy for Underlying Motel Claim
  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim

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