In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1289 (10th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit articulated an important rule for construing commercial general liability policies: [A] CGL policy ‘begin[s] with a broad grant of coverage, w[hich is then limited in scope by exclusions. Exceptions to exclusions narrow the scope of the exclusion and . . . add back coverage. But it is the initial broad grant of ... Keep Reading »
As Gunfire Thins the Ranks of the Employed, Employee Exclusions Hold the Line Against Coverage
As this blog has previously reported, accidents with guns are not likely to become less common any time soon. With home- and business-owners striving to find increasingly original ways to get shot, they will put increasing strain on the traditional language of the coverage exclusions in insurance policies. In Gear Automotive v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 12-2446 (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ... Keep Reading »
Too Much of a Good Thing: Household Product Triggers Pollution Exclusion, Because “Quantity Matters”
Pollution exclusion clauses began appearing in commercial general liability policies when federal laws began making businesses liable for the cost of massive environmental clean-ups—like the remediation of “Volatile Organic Compounds” that was recently at issue in Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., No. 11-16272 (9th Cir. March 15, 2013). A recent Colorado case presented the issue of when the grease that goes into your bacon double cheeseburger becomes a ... Keep Reading »
SCOTUS: Would-Be Class Representative Cannot Avoid CAFA Jurisdiction by Stipulating to Limit Damages
Some class action plaintiffs who want to keep their cases in state court execute “stipulations” not to seek more than $5 million in aggregated damages on behalf of the class. When the case is removed, they argue that the defendant cannot establish that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000”—the threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. In a curt, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of ... Keep Reading »
Eighth Circuit Declines to Expand Definition of “Conflict of Interest” in Reservation-of-Rights Scenario
A liability insurer’s reservation of rights can affect the insurer’s ability to participate in the litigation of the underlying action. In most states, an insurer must provide independent counsel if the insurer’s coverage position might benefit from a failure of the insured’s defense on one or more issues in the underlying suit. As this blog has reported, it is a rule in some other states that the reservation of rights, in and of itself, creates a conflict that ... Keep Reading »
Oregon Supreme Court Addresses Attorneys’ Fees for Appellate Proceedings in Class Action Over Automated Review of Medical Bills
Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon is a class action that challenged the insurer’s use of automated bill review systems to determine the reasonableness of medical claims submitted under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage of automobile policies. The plaintiff alleged that Farmers had promised to pay the “reasonable” cost of covered medical services, but had failed to do so. In May 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon ruled that a class could ... Keep Reading »
Amid Gun Frenzy, West Virginia Court Pries Coverage Issue From the Jury’s Hands
Since President Obama called for new gun-control legislation after the Sandy Hook tragedy, sales of weapons have spiked and government officials have proposed a variety of new measures to encourage —or even mandate —gun training and ownership. In a development that is arguably unrelated to this increase in the number of people handling firearms, accidental shootings have occurred at gun shows and ranges, in gun stores and even during gun certification training courses. ... Keep Reading »
Impleading an Insured Proves “Mighty” Costly
Nuances of procedure can make a big difference in coverage disputes. In Danaher Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Corp., No. 10 Civ. 0121(JPO)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2013), Travelers was required to pay the attorneys’ fees its insured had incurred filing a summary judgment motion in a case against Travelers. The ruling was not based on any impropriety in the insurer’s opposition to the motion, but rather, on the fact that Travelers had chosen to bring the insured into the ... Keep Reading »
In the Last Frontier, Insurers Shouldn’t Leave Defendants Out in the Cold
An Alaska politician once said of the folks she grew up with, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." But those virtues don’t exactly leap out of the story behind Williams v. Geico Cas. Co., No. S–14089 (Alaska Jan. 25, 2013), which mostly has to do with alcohol, selfishness and stupidity. At the climax of this sordid tale, a party to the lawsuit argued that an insurer’s refusal to offer policy limits for a release of only one ... Keep Reading »
Federal Court Refuses to Let Insured Shoot First, Seek Coverage Later
at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the issue has been taken up passionately by both sides of the dispute over gun violence. Did the murderers in Newtown and Aurora kill in large numbers because they were able to fire many shots quickly, and without reloading, as Sen. Lautenberg believes? Or, as a Wall Street Journal editorial recently suggested, can the proliferation of mass killings be more reasonably attributed to the practice of designating “gun-free zones” in ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next Page »