PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

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 »

Round Up The Usual And Customary Suspects: Insurers May Determine UCR Prices By Shopping At Retail Outlets

June 17, 2016 by Zachary D. Ludens and Robert D. Helfand

For more than a decade, medical providers have tried to limit the discretion of automobile insurers to pay less than the billed amount for services and equipment offered to injured insureds. Most of these efforts involve challenges to the use of automated bill review systems. But in Freedom Medical Supply Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 14-1628 (3rd Cir. June 8, 2016), a company charging 1,000% mark-ups on equipment it bought at Bed Bath & Beyond argued ... Keep Reading »

Step-Up, Insurer! Your Step-Down Provision Is Not Triggered

June 10, 2016 by Nora Valenza-Frost

“Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” -- Frank Pierson Where an automobile policy covers someone other than the named insured, a “step-down” provision may subject the amount of available coverage to the limit on “similar coverage” that is imposed by the injured person’s own policy. Sometimes, however, that second policy does not cover a particular risk at all. Last month, in Rivera v. McCray, No. A-2337-14T1 (N.J. App. Div. May 2, 2016), a New Jersey appellate ... Keep Reading »

Alabama Puts The Mystery Back Into All-Risk Coverage

June 3, 2016 by John W. Herrington

“There is, one knows not what sweet mystery about this sea …” -- Moby-Dick Insuring property against loss creates an unavoidable moral hazard: policyholders often have an incentive to cause or allow their property to disappear. Early efforts to limit insurers’ exposure to that risk—such as requiring the insured to prove the cause of a loss by “direct and affirmative evidence”—proved unsustainable. Eventually, the problem gave rise to express exclusions for losses ... Keep Reading »

Eighth Circuit Orders Coverage For Hackers’ Fraudulent Wire Transfer

May 27, 2016 by John C. Pitblado

Financial institution bonds come in various forms, depending on the nature of the insured business (e.g. bank, broker, insurance company). Common forms are fidelity bonds and commercial crime policies. These policies provide first party coverage against losses caused by employee dishonesty, forgery, kidnap, ransom & extortion, computer fraud and other specified financial frauds. These policies are common, and in some cases required by law, for banks, insurers, and ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • …
  • 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

  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Judgment Dismissing Bad Faith Claim Without Viable Breach of Contract Claim
  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Broad Reading of CGL Policy’s “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” to Include EMF Radiation
  • Iowa Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule That Faulty Workmanship Is Not an Occurrence, Leaving Question of Statutory Fraud for Another Day

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