PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

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 »

Third Circuit Slams The Door On Coverage For The Cost of Defending Excluded Claims—Then Leaves It Wide Open

July 15, 2016 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

An insured corporation settles a class action, and a portion of the settlement pays the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Payments to the class are excluded from coverage under the terms of the corporation’s liability policy. But can the company still get coverage for the attorneys’ fees? In April, this blog discussed a case in which the answer turned on the nature of the company’s underlying conduct. The following month, in PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Houston Casualty ... Keep Reading »

Not Seeing Double: In Reversal, New York Court Holds That Third-Party Liability Payments May Not Offset UIM Benefits

July 8, 2016 by Gabriella Paglieri

In New York, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage “does not function … to fully compensate … insureds for their injuries.” Weiss v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 98 A.D.3d 1107, 951 N.Y.S.2d 191 (2d Dep’t 2012). UIM coverage is subject to limits, and those limits are generally reduced by the amount of coverage available to the person who caused the injury. Standard UIM endorsements also provide that coverage “shall not duplicate” payments the insured receives from ... Keep Reading »

Defining the Contours of Cyber Coverage for Data Breach: a Warning in Arizona

June 24, 2016 by John C. Pitblado

By Immanuel Giel - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36783221

A year ago in this space, we looked at the receding wave of coverage litigation regarding whether various cyber-related exposures were covered under traditional policies, such as CGL and professional liability policies.  Deemed “square peg” litigation, those cases were mostly a mixed bag.  And, as predicted, since the advent of the now burgeoning cyber-specific coverage market, those cases are largely becoming irrelevant, as insurers have begun to place exclusions in ... 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

  • 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