PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Wall-to-Wall Ads: Florida Court’s Broad Definition of “Advertisement” Expands Scope of Advertising Injury Coverage

November 13, 2015 by Daniel G. Enriquez and Robert D. Helfand

“Advertising injury” can be tricky. In theory, the term applies to the type of harm that can be inflicted through advertising media—defamation, disparagement, violation of privacy rights or misappropriation of intellectual property. Because trademark infringement injures plaintiffs in a different way, trademark claims are generally excluded from coverage—except where the insured has used an infringing text or trade dress in an advertisement. That wrinkle makes it ... Keep Reading »

Additional Insureds Deserve Attention Too: New York Court Finds Insurer’s Reservation of Rights to Named Insured Did Not Constitute Notice to Additional Insured Under § 3420(d)(2)

November 5, 2015 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Liability insurers issuing or delivering policies in New York are well apprised of the statutory requirement that the insured is to be provided written notice of a disclaimer or denial of a bodily injury or death claim “as soon as is reasonably possible.” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(d)(2). Also well-known is that an insurer may face severe consequences from delaying issuance of a disclaimer on a ground that is known to be valid, while still investigating other possible grounds ... Keep Reading »

“Contractor?” I Do Not Think That Employers’ Liability Exclusion Means What You Think It Means

October 30, 2015 by Jonathan Sterling

Picture of Mandy Patinkin

Over the summer, this blog reported on how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania managed to parse an employer's liability exclusion to find that it did not exclude claims by employees of additional insureds. As the leaves started to turn, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit put an employer's exclusion under a similar microscope. In United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Benchmark Constr. Svcs., Inc., No. 14-1832 (1st Cir. Aug. 12, 2015), a case arising out of a home ... Keep Reading »

Hot Topics in Cyber Coverage [PODCAST]

October 21, 2015 by John C. Pitblado and Joseph W. Swanson

Picture of a Lock on Computer Chip

Insurers face a potential double whammy when it comes to cybersecurity threats. Like other companies, they must be vigilant about protecting the sensitive data they collect and store from hacks and breaches. On the other hand, insurers also are responsible for paying for claims when a breach occurs. Insurers are scrambling to craft new coverages in the wake of new risks and liabilities, while insurance regulators are scrambling to implement enhanced regulations requiring ... Keep Reading »

McCarran-Ferguson Lands a Jab on the FAA

October 16, 2015 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of a Boxing Match

As we reported in this space late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745 (2011), tilted the scales toward federal power in the field of arbitration, preempting state laws that may stand in the way of enforcing arbitration agreements pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ( "FAA"). Naturally, this left the McCarran-Ferguson Act spoiling for a fight, given its restoration to the states of all power to ... Keep Reading »

Third Circuit Decides that “Publication” Doesn’t Include the Collection of Customer Data

October 9, 2015 by Ashley Harrison Sakakeeny

Picture of a Display Mannequin

On September 15, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Lamorak Insurance Company (formerly OneBeacon America Insurance Company)  and the Hanover Insurance Group don't have to defend their insureds, Urban Outfitters, Inc. and its subsidiary Anthropologie, Inc., under "personal and advertising injury" coverage in three putative class action lawsuits challenging the stores' collection of customer zip codes. The putative class actions are in the District ... Keep Reading »

Phishing for Cybersecurity Coverage: When is a Fraud a “Computer Fraud”?

October 8, 2015 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of a Fishing Boat

In late June, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling that there was no coverage for a health insurance company policyholder, under a "Computer Systems Fraud" rider issued by its insurer, for an underlying $18 million liability it incurred as a result of paying fraudulent claims submitted by providers for services never performed, under certain of its Medicare Advantage plans. In August, a Texas federal court found coverage under a "Computer Fraud" ... Keep Reading »

Accidentally On Purpose: Washington Court Finds Coverage For Contempt Of Court Based On “Misunderstanding”

September 30, 2015 by Stephen J. Bagge and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of Break the Rules Mural in London, England

Professional liability policies cover claims based on the insured’s alleged negligent acts, errors or omissions, and not claims for “sanctions or penalties” for “willful” professional misconduct.  But the insurer’s duty to defend is very broad.  Recently, a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding filed a motion against the attorney for a judgment creditor, seeking to have her held in civil contempt for an allegedly “willful” violation of a discharge injunction.  In Gauthier v. ... Keep Reading »

Keeping it Basic: NJ Supreme Court Limits Amount Owed to Innocent Third Parties

September 17, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of a Broken Car Headlight

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an automobile insurer must pay an innocent third party the contracted $10,000 amount of basic coverage following an auto accident involving the insured's vehicle, despite that the policy was procured by fraud and rescinded.  Luckily for the insurer, the Court held that the insurer was only responsible for the amount of coverage provided by the rescinded policy, which was $5,000 less than the $15,000 per person/$30,000 per ... Keep Reading »

Conflict Resolution: Illinois Appellate Court Finds No Conflict in Defending Two Insureds, and No Duty of Primary to Excess Insurer to Settle Case

September 10, 2015 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Picture of the 72nd Street Station Subway

When an insurer defends its insured under a liability policy, the insurer has a duty to act in good faith to the insured in responding to settlement offers. In Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1-14-0928 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2015), the Illinois Court of Appeals determined that, where a primary insurer and excess insurer provide coverage to a common insured, the primary does not owe the same duty to the excess – at least where the ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • …
  • 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