In Helguera v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an intentional acts exclusion in the liability coverage part of a homeowners insurance policy issued by Mid-Century Insurance Co. barred coverage for an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The court rejected the insured’s argument that the exclusion rendered coverage illusory. The underlying wrongful death lawsuit involved a shooting at a party at the insured’s house. ... Keep Reading »
Kentucky Holds No Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claim Under Policy Issued After Claimant’s Wrongful Arrest
In City of Newport v. Westport Insurance Co., the Kentucky Court of Appeals addressed whether coverage existed for a malicious prosecution claim in a law enforcement liability policy that covered only periods of time during the claimant’s incarceration, but not when the claimant was originally arrested and wrongfully convicted of the crimes. In the late 1980s, William Virgil was convicted of crimes he did not commit and spent 28 years in prison before DNA testing ... Keep Reading »
Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Mouthwash Tainted From Auto Cleanser Equipment
Applying well-settled Wisconsin law, a federal district court found that an insurer had no duty to indemnify an oral hygiene product manufacturer for tainted products after determining that the losses did not result from an “occurrence” under an excess liability policy. The case, Sage Products LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., arose from a recall of single-use oral hygiene kits that were provided to hospitals and nursing homes. The supplier of the kits contracted with a ... Keep Reading »
“Common Sense Should Prevail” — Federal Court Recognizes Exception to “Eight-Corners Rule,” Allows Use of Undisputed Extrinsic Evidence to Preclude Duty to Defend
In Southern-Owners Insurance Co. v. Midnight Tires Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment after considering extrinsic evidence on the issue of the insurer’s duty to defend in an action seeking a declaration that the insured’s garage general liability policy did not cover claims in an underlying motor vehicle injury lawsuit. In the underlying action, Midnight Tires Inc. was sued in connection ... Keep Reading »
Explosives Manufacturer’s Pollution-Related Claim Blown Up by State-Specific Endorsement
In Dyno Nobel v. Steadfast Insurance Co., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that, under Utah law, where a specific state is listed in an endorsement heading, coverage under the endorsement is limited to claims that have a nexus with that state, so long as such a reading is consistent with the body of the endorsement and policy text. Dyno Nobel is an explosives manufacturer with its principal place of business in Utah. It purchased a commercial general ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Finds Excess Carrier Owes Nothing to Insured Who Failed to Obtain Prior Written Consent to Settlement
In Vizio Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., a case stemming from a class action settlement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified several areas of California law involving the interaction of primary and excess insurance coverage, as well as what constitutes adequate notice to excess carriers. Beginning in 2014, television producer Vizio started selling televisions that automatically tracked what customers were watching and sent that information back to Vizio. The ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Meaning of “Advertising Idea” in Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Section of Standard CGL Policy
In Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. A.H.D. Houston Inc., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the meaning of the undefined term “advertising idea” in the insuring agreement of a commercial general liability policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage section. In that case, insurer Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (PESLIC) issued two commercial general liability policies to several Texas strip clubs. The strip clubs ... Keep Reading »
Washington Appellate Court Finds Insureds’ Failure to Provide Statutory Notice of Intent to Sue Did Not Void Default Judgments Against Insurer
In Gates v. Homesite Insurance Co., the Washington Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff-insureds’ failure to provide 20 days’ notice of intent to sue its insurer, though required by statute, was a mere “procedural irregularity” insufficient to void the default judgments entered against the insurer. The court also noted that the insurer’s failure to timely respond to the lawsuit was the result of an “internal communication issue” and not an extraordinary circumstance ... Keep Reading »
New York Federal Court Enforces “Third Party or Contracted Security” Exclusion to Abrogate Duty to Defend for All Defendants in Assault Suit
In Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Co. v. TFS NY Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, interpreting the plain and unambiguous terms of a commercial general liability policy issued by Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Co. to TFS NY Inc., ruled Clear Blue did not have a duty to defend TFS against a suit arising from an alleged assault. TFS does business as Sugardaddy’s and owns and operates a nightclub. The underlying dispute stemmed from a ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Holds No Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Lyft Driver Following Crash
In Neptune v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed whether uninsured motorist (UM) coverage applied in an accident where there was no evidence of a “hit” from the uninsured vehicle. In April 2019, Maria Neptune worked as a driver for Lyft, a rideshare company. She accepted a request to provide a ride from Houston, Texas, to nearby Cypress, Texas. When Neptune arrived in her SUV at the pick-up location, a young man entered ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 48
- Next Page »