PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Oregon Supreme Court Revives Century-Old Statute to Award Attorney’s Fees to Policyholder

May 5, 2017 by Jason Morris

The general rule regarding a party’s responsibility for legal fees in U.S. courts, known as the “American Rule,” provides that, barring a contrary contractual obligation or statute, each party is responsible for its own legal fees, regardless of a dispute’s outcome. Although statutory exceptions to this rule are many, the overwhelming majority of those exceptions require that the person receiving a fee award at least be the prevailing party. Not so in Oregon — or at ... Keep Reading »

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies When Insured May Recover Policy Benefits

April 28, 2017 by Gabriella Paglieri

In an effort to clarify over 20 years of conflicting precedent, the Texas Supreme Court announced five rules that, according to the court, explain the relationship between claims for breach of insurance policy and extra-contractual claims for bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, No. 14-0721, slip op. at 6 (Tex. April 7, 2017). Although an insurance policy is an agreement between the parties that is generally governed by ... Keep Reading »

New York Court Upholds Suit Limitation Period, Ruling Appraisal is Not a Condition Precedent to Filing Suit

April 21, 2017 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Hourglass

Courts will generally uphold reasonable suit limitation periods in property insurance policies, if the insurer does not affirmatively waive or extend them. In MZM Real Estate Corp. v. Tower Ins. Co. of New York, No. 452741/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 11, 2017), a New York court followed the general rule. In enforcing a suit limitation period, the court was unpersuaded by the insured’s argument that once appraisal is demanded it becomes a condition precedent to filing ... Keep Reading »

Marijuana Insurance: Workers’ Compensation Carriers Take a Hit

April 14, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Medical Marijuana Sign

Marijuana is becoming big business as its growth rate zooms past even the astronomical dotcom industry growth rate of the 1990s. The industry had nearly $7 billion in 2016 revenue (a 30 percent increase over 2015), and an eye-popping $20 billion in annual revenue is projected by 2021. Since the 2016 elections, 28 states plus D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, have legalized marijuana in some form — of these, eight states plus D.C. have legalized its recreational use. But, ... Keep Reading »

A Stitch in Time Saves … An Insured From Incurring Non-Covered Defense Costs

April 7, 2017 by Christopher B. Freeman

Timely notice is typically a condition precedent to coverage under an insurance contract, though many states require an insurer to demonstrate prejudice before denying coverage solely based on a failure to comply with a notice provision. However, as the court found in EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, No. 14-10616 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), even in the absence of demonstrable prejudice to an insurer, late notice by the insured may ... Keep Reading »

Blowing the Whistle on Willful Misconduct: California Court holds that False Claims Act Suits Are Uninsurable Due to Public Policy

March 31, 2017 by Daniel G. Enriquez

Willful misconduct is uninsurable. It is a fundamental principle of insurance, and it makes sense to both the lay and the lawyerly.  But few states go as far as to codify this principle in the insurance code. California is an exception. In Office Depot, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 15-02416-SVW-LPRx (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that Section 533 of California’s Insurance Code relieved ... Keep Reading »

Reading the Crystal Ball: Reservation of Rights Letters under South Carolina Law in the Wake of Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., et al.

March 23, 2017 by Amanda Proctor

The South Carolina Supreme Court recently took a firm stance on what constitutes a sufficient reservation of rights letter in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., et al., -- S.E.2d -- , No. 2013-001281, 2017 WL 105021, at *2 (S.C. Jan. 11, 2017). In Heritage, the court addressed coverage for defective construction at two condominium developments in Myrtle Beach. According to the opinion, the developments were constructed between 1997 and 2000 by ... Keep Reading »

Who is an Insured and What is a Claim? Circuit Courts Offer Guidance in Applying the “Insured vs. Insured” Exclusion in D&O Policies

March 3, 2017 by Brooke L. French

Serena and Venus Williams

Typical directors and officers (“D&O”) liability policies exclude from coverage claims brought by one of the company’s directors or officers against another, or between the company and any of its directors or officers. The purpose of the exclusion is to make clear that there is no coverage for intra-company in-fighting. It also provides insurers with some protection against potentially collusive claims. Sometimes questions arise as to who the “company” is, or whether ... Keep Reading »

NY DFS Cybersecurity Regulations Take Effect March 1, 2017

February 24, 2017 by Nora Valenza-Frost

We previously reported on the New York Department of Financial Services’ proposed cybersecurity regulations. During the public comment period, the DFS received over 150 comments. In response, the DFS announced on December 28, 2016, that it had revised the proposed regulations and delayed their effective date two months. On February 16, 2017, the DFS confirmed the final regulations will take effect March 1, 2017, with required compliance 180 days thereafter (August 28, ... Keep Reading »

Third Circuit Affirms Rescission of $25 Million Contaminated Products Policy

February 10, 2017 by Gabriella Paglieri

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 16-1447 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2017), the Third Circuit affirmed a District Court’s order allowing insurer Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Starr”) to rescind a $25 million Contaminated Products Insurance (CPI) policy that it sold to food manufacturer H.J. Heinz Company (“Heinz”), on the basis that Heinz failed to disclose material information in its insurance application. After Starr declined coverage, Heinz ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • …
  • 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