In Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brown’s Clearing Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama district court’s ruling that the insured was not required to give notice of an underlying lawsuit until the insured had actual knowledge of the suit. Brown’s Clearing, a tree clearing company, hired a subcontractor to clear trees along I-75 in Bartow, Georgia. In July 2018, Courtney Ford allegedly sustained injuries when a tree limb pierced the ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Finds Notice-of-Impairment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Warehouse Fire
In Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fun F/X II, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered whether loss from a warehouse fire was excluded from coverage because of the insureds' failure to notify the insurer of a known impairment to the building’s fire protection systems prior to the fire. The defendants were owners of a costume and theatrical supply retailer that stored inventory in a warehouse insured by the plaintiff, Frankenmuth Mutual ... Keep Reading »
Florida Appellate Court Affirms Work Product Protection for Insurer’s Claim File
In Family Security Insurance Co. v. Stein, No. 4D22-1468 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 8, 2023), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal confirmed that, in a coverage action where the issue of coverage is in dispute, an insurer’s claim file and claim investigation materials are protected by the work product privilege. Family Security was a breach of contract action filed by two homeowners seeking homeowners insurance coverage for damage to their home. The insurer denied ... Keep Reading »
Florida Supreme Court Holds That a Public Adjuster With Pecuniary Interest Cannot Qualify as a “Disinterested” Appraiser for Homeowner
In Parrish v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., the Florida Supreme Court settled a conflict between two appellate courts, holding that a public adjuster, including the president of a public adjusting company, cannot serve as a “disinterested” appraiser if they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the appraisal. Background and Underlying Proceeding In September 2017, John Parrish, sustained damage to his home from Hurricane Irma. At the time of the damage, the ... Keep Reading »
Ohio Supreme Court Finds Insured’s Ransomware Payment Not Covered Under Business Owners Policy
In EMOI Services LLC v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 2021-1529 (Ohio Dec. 27, 2022), the Ohio Supreme Court found that there was no coverage for a ransomware attack because there was no direct physical loss as required under the business owners insurance policy, reinstating the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the insurer. The insured, a computer software company whose software provided certain administrative services for medical offices, was a victim of ... Keep Reading »
No CGL Coverage for Opioid Distributor Sued for Economic Damages but Not Bodily Injury Damage
In Westfield National Insurance Co. v. Quest Pharmaceuticals, the Sixth Circuit held that two insurers owed no coverage obligations to Quest Pharmaceuticals in connection with 77 lawsuits filed against it alleging misconduct that contributed to a nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse. 57 F.4th 558 (6th Cir. 2023). Quest Pharmaceuticals, a Kentucky-based distributor of generic drugs, faced an onslaught of lawsuits from cities, counties, a county health department, ... Keep Reading »
New California Time-Limited Demand Statute for Insurance Claims Effective Now
In an effort to promote early resolution of claims and remove ambiguity in bad faith litigation, the California legislature recently passed Senate Bill 1155. Effective January 1, 2023, the bill creates California Code of Civil Procedure Section 999 et seq., a set of rules detailing form requirements for time-limited demands, demand delivery procedures, and steps needed to accept or deny the demand. The scope of Section 999 is limited to demands brought prior to any suit ... Keep Reading »
NY Federal Court Finds “Insured v. Insured” Exclusion in D&O Policy Trumps General Allocation Clause
On December 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether an “insured v. insured” (IvI) exclusion applied to bar coverage for an underlying lawsuit brought against insureds under a directors & officers (D&O) liability policy by another insured under the same policy, and another noninsured party. Thomas L. Gregory v. Navigators Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-04834. Thomas Gregory was an employee of Tarter Gate ... Keep Reading »
Florida Insurance Reform Special Session 2 – This Time Means Business
Between 2017 and 2022, 11 property & casualty insurers domiciled in Florida were declared insolvent and placed into liquidation. In an attempt to restore stability to the marketplace, Governor Ron DeSantis issued a proclamation on April 26, 2022, calling the Florida Legislature into special session to reform Florida’s Insurance Code. While the ensuing May special session yielded significant changes, including amendments designed to reduce fraudulent roof claims and ... Keep Reading »
New York Federal Judge Finds No Duty to Defend Based on War Exclusion’s Insurrection Clause
In Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. The Western Union Co. et al., No. 22-CV-0557 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2022), a federal judge in New York granted Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss Western Union’s counterclaims, ruling that the war exclusion and financial services exclusion in its commercial general liability insurance policy both independently operated to bar coverage for the underlying lawsuit. Underlying ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- …
- 48
- Next Page »