PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Visits From the Ghosts of Claims Past and Claims Future

September 30, 2016 by John C. Pitblado

Cybersecurity awareness month is nigh upon us again, and thus perspective is in order. 2016 brought us the first collection and analysis of the nascent claims history of the burgeoning cyber-insurance market. On August 27, 2016, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) released its “Report on the Cybersecurity Insurance Coverage Supplement,” which provides helpful analysis of NAIC’s first data cull from insurers writing various forms of cyber coverage. ... Keep Reading »

Postdiluvian Perils: Second Circuit Weighs Coverage For Losses Suffered After The Waters Recede

September 23, 2016 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and Robert D. Helfand

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.

“[N]ow I only hear/ Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,/ Retreating, to the breath/ Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear/ And naked shingles of the world.” — Matthew Arnold As this blog has reported, exclusions and limits for flood coverage have generally held up against the tide of claims arising from Superstorm Sandy.  Now that the water is gone, however, new losses have been discovered, and new challenges arise.  Last month, in National Railroad ... Keep Reading »

Subcontractor Exception Torpedoes Insurers’ Defense To Faulty Workmanship Claim

September 16, 2016 by Daniel G. Enriquez and Robert D. Helfand

Cypress Point Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.

As this blog has reported, a line of cases deciding coverage disputes over faulty workmanship runs against (or, at least, around) a basic rule for interpreting insurance policies.  Under that rule, the scope of coverage is determined by a policy’s insuring clause, which may be narrowed by one or more exclusions.  Exceptions to the exclusions can add back coverage that the exclusions remove, but they cannot create coverage beyond the ambit of the insuring clause.  E.g., ... Keep Reading »

In Indiana, an Absolute Pollution Exclusion May Exclude Absolutely Nothing

September 9, 2016 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Medical Test Tubes

A recent article in the Sports section of The Miami Herald read "Shooting coach helps Winslow." Perhaps, but it probably didn't help the coach much. The admonition to "eat every carrot and pea on your plate" undoubtedly elicits laughs from the children to whom it is directed. The point is, some things are unambiguously ambiguous. Others are not. Consider these basic principles of Indiana contract interpretation: Limitations on coverage in insurance policies must ... Keep Reading »

NAIC Exposes Revised Draft Model Cybersecurity Law for Insurers for Public Comment

September 2, 2016 by John C. Pitblado

Cybersecurity Credit Card Hacker

Insurers are a prime target for hackers as a result of the vast stores of valuable data they maintain. Not all information is created equal, and it varies in value. Hacker services and software, illegal drugs, cyberweapons, and all kinds of other types of stolen, confidential, and compromised information is monetized and traded daily on darknet markets using various forms of cryptocurrency, by governments, hackers, criminals, and businesses. While a stolen credit card ... Keep Reading »

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s… uh oh… a Super Lien!

August 26, 2016 by Gary Pappas

Liability insurers have always gnashed teeth over the dreaded “super lien” – aka a lien asserted by Medicare for treatment expenses where the patient is reimbursed through a settlement obtained in personal injury litigation. This is because Medicare has a right of action against the primary payer (e.g., a tortfeasor’s liability insurer) that is effectively absolute, even if the insurer has already paid settlement funds to the injured party that includes an amount meant ... Keep Reading »

Greed is Not Good: The Personal Profit Exclusion

August 19, 2016 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

As this blog has frequently discussed, many limitations and exclusions in liability policies address “moral hazard” situations by declining to provide insurance for bad behavior. One such exclusion is the “personal profit exclusion” contained in most D&O policies, which bars coverage for claims where an insured gains a profit or other advantage to which it is not legally entitled. This exclusion was recently addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court in Winbrook ... Keep Reading »

A Plague A’ Both Your Clauses: Insurance Probably Won’t Cover Businesses Stung By Zika

August 12, 2016 by John A. Camp

During the past several months, Zika virus has rapidly spread across Latin America and into the United States. While Congressional action has stalled, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a number of travel warnings, including one stating that “[p]regnant women should not travel” to the popular Wynwood neighborhood of Miami. This warning will almost certainly harm the many restaurants, art galleries and retail shops that cater to Wynwood’s ... Keep Reading »

Washington Court Finds Coverage For “Collapse” Is Not Set In Stone

August 5, 2016 by Mariko Shitama Outman

As this blog has documented, the language of insurance policies evolves; it changes to address new risks, and it also responds to new interpretations of old policy provisions. Even if a policyholder maintains a long-standing relationship with a single carrier, the availability of coverage might turn on whether the loss occurred in a particular policy term. Property coverage for “collapse” provides an example of this development. After a number of courts found that the ... Keep Reading »

Tenth Circuit Drills Down Into Roots Of Moral Hazard, Comes Up Dry

July 29, 2016 by John W. Herrington

'Fess Up... Don't pass the buck!

Moral hazard (one of this blog’s preoccupations) usually comes up in disputes over the scope of coverage under an insurance policy.  (See, for example, here, here  and here.)  But state legislatures often address it, too—for example, by imposing limits on agreements to indemnify a party against the consequences of its own negligence.  This week, in Lexington Ins. Co. v. Precision Drilling Co., No. 15-8036 (10th Cir. July 26, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • …
  • 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