PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Accrual to be Kind: Pennsylvania Appellate Court Addresses Statute of Limitations for Declaratory Claim

September 9, 2015 by Matthew Burrows

Picture of The Palace of Westminster

A Pennsylvania appeals court recently addressed a nuanced procedural question: the applicable statute of limitations in a declaratory action of a coverage dispute. In Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Hospitality Group Svcs, Inc., No. 1430 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 7, 2015), the court determined that an insurer’s responsibility to commence a timely action for declaratory relief in a coverage dispute begins to toll when the insurer has a factual basis sufficient to allow it ... Keep Reading »

Cybersecurity as a Regulatory Issue: The NAIC Considers The Anthem Breach And Weighs a “Cybersecurity Bill of Rights”

September 3, 2015 by Ben Seessel

The Cybersecurity Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the "NAIC") met last month, as part of on the NAIC's 2015 Summer National Meeting in Chicago. The Task Force focused on two issues:  the recent massive data breach suffered by Anthem, Inc., and a draft "Consumer Cybersecurity Bill of Rights" that was released for public comment in late July. The Anthem Breach Anthem's general counsel reported that the FBI has completed its ... Keep Reading »

Playing With Fire: No Liability Coverage For Tax Preparers Who Took Deductions for Illegal Tax Shelters

August 27, 2015 by John A. Camp

“Gimme Shelter” is  one of the greatest of a lot of great Rolling Stones songs (made greater by Merry Clayton’s gut-wrenching contribution).  And, of course, “Gimme Shelter” is a cliché often trotted out in discussions of tax shelters. We’re not going to do that here.  Instead, Financial Strategy Group, PLC v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. 14-6296 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2015), puts us in mind of that other great Stones song, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” Because ... Keep Reading »

California Declares New Rules for Assignment of Long Tail Claims

August 26, 2015 by Robert D. Helfand and Barry Leigh Weissman

Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California changed the law governing anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies.  Twelve years ago, in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal.4th 934 (2003), the court held that such provisions are fully enforceable, until a claim against the insured has been reduced to either a judgment or a settlement. The latest case, Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, No. S205889 (Cal. ... Keep Reading »

Ninth Circuit Finds Defects in the Construction of a “Known-Loss” Exclusion

August 14, 2015 by Ashley Harrison Sakakeeny

Picture of Mount Hood

A mason who performed work on a residential project was notified in 2006 that cracks had developed in his work.  Several months later, the mason purchased a commercial general liability policy that expressly excluded coverage for property damage, if an insured "knew that the … damage had occurred, in whole or in part."  In 2007, the project's general contractor sued the mason, claiming that defects in his work had caused the property damage that was the subject of a suit ... Keep Reading »

For “At-Issue Waiver,” The Best Defense May Not Be An Affirmative Defense

July 29, 2015 by Zachary D. Ludens

Picture of Jack Dempsey Boxing

Silence is argument carried out by other means. –Ernesto “Che” Guevara As this blog has repeatedly documented, it can be hard for insurers to assert the attorney-client privilege in the context of bad faith litigation.  One difficulty arises in states that enforce a presumption against the privilege in bad faith suits.  In many cases, insurers need to waive the privilege, to assert a defense based on advice of counsel.  Last month, a federal court in South Carolina ... Keep Reading »

Fifth Circuit Finds Erosion in Texas—Because Endorsements Are Transformative

July 28, 2015 by Stephen J. Bagge

Picture of the Dust Bowl in 1936

In Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Specialty Ins Co., No. 14-20239 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015), a case that applied Texas law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the word "expenses," as used in a liability policy, unambiguously applies to attorneys' fees—and that an endorsement dealing with "expenses" had "transform[ed] the policy in an 'eroding limits' policy."  Among other things, the case shows that Texans and New Yorkers don't use words ... Keep Reading »

Who’s the Boss? In Policies Covering Multiple Insureds, the Details Matter

July 27, 2015 by Jonathan Sterling

Liability policies for businesses are subject to a number of common exclusions; many, for example, do not cover liability to employees of the business who are injured on the job.  Frequently, those policies do provide coverage to additional insured parties, such as lenders or property owners, that deal with the business.  Recently, in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Politsopoulos, No. 60 MAP 2014 (Penn. May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question ... Keep Reading »

Fourth Circuit: If You Want to Limit Additional Insured Coverage to Vicarious Liability, You Should Say So

July 20, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of the Berlin Wall

In Capital City Real Estate, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 14-1239 (4th Cir. June 10, 2015), the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that a Maryland federal court erred in granting summary judgment to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (“Lloyd's") in a coverage dispute between it and its insured, a construction contractor, by misinterpreting the “additional insured" endorsement in the policy issued by Lloyds. The lawsuit arose out of a construction ... Keep Reading »

Cyberclaim Coverage Denied: The TCPA Protects Privacy, Not Personally Identifiable Information

July 16, 2015 by Jacob R. Hathorn

Picture of a Text Message

In Doctors Direct Ins., Inc. v. Beaute’ E’mergente, LLC, No. 1-14-2919 (Ill. App. Ct. June 22, 2015), an Illinois state appellate court recently affirmed that a medical malpractice liability insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify its insured in an underlying class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the “ICFA”), because there was no ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • …
  • 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