Sign our Guestbook
CLICK to see Insurance Law & Litigation Products
Liberty Mutual's duty to defend precludes reimbursement for defense funds
From recent issues of Insurance Law & Litigation Week
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled a subcontractor's insurer has a duty to defend a contractor against claims of breach of contract and negligence asserted by buyers of condominiums. Thus, the insurer was not entitled to reimbursement of the attorney's fees and costs it paid for the buyers and contractor.
Statute governing notice of cancellation extends to surplus lines insurer
From recent issues of Insurance Law & Litigation Week
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a liability insured whose surplus lines insurer disclaimed coverage of an underlying claim based on its purported prior cancellation of the policy. The policy's 10-day notice of cancellation period violated an applicable state statute which imposed a 60-day cancellation period on all liability insurance policies issued within the state, and which applied to the surplus lines insurer.
Nationwide policy's regular use exclusion does not contravene public policy
From recent issues of Insurance Law & Litigation Week
The Ohio Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an auto insurer who disclaimed its insured's uninsured motorist (UM) claim arising from an accident involving an uninsured driver. A regular use exclusion that operated to bar coverage did not contravene public policy where the exclusion complied with an applicable statute governing UM coverage.
Insured entitled to coverage of restitution order issued in criminal action
From recent issues of Insurance Law & Litigation Week
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court's denial of a homeowners' insured's claim for coverage of a decedent's funeral expenses which the insured was required to pay under a restitution order issued in conjunction with a criminal case brought against the insured in connection with the decedent's death. The insured's contractual right to coverage outweighed any public policy considerations that argued against extending coverage to the underlying restitution order.
Insured may not seek punitive damages against insurer who reasonably believed insured committed arson
From recent issues of Insurance Law & Litigation Week
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer on the issue of punitive damages, finding that the insured is not entitled to punitive damages because the insurer's denial of a homeowners' insurance claim was reasonably based in the insurer's belief that the insured committed arson.
Property management agreement did not convert insurance policy to excess policy
From recent issues of California Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The California Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a property insurer who sued the liability insurer of a property manager-insured who disclaimed any obligation to contribute to the settlement of a third-party claim brought jointly against the two insureds. A contractual provision in the property management agreement did not convert the property manager's primary policy into an excess policy.
Insured's breach did not eliminate insurer's duty to defend underlying claim
From recent issues of California Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied an excess liability insurer's motion for summary judgment in a case brought by its general contractor-insured for breach of duty to defend. The insured's failure to perform required liability-limiting obligations relating to its subcontractors did not eliminate all policy coverage where the underlying claim included allegations of substandard work on the part of the general contractor as well as the subcontractors.
Insured states claim for breach of contract where non-smoking and smoking premium rates are the same for juveniles
From recent issues of New York Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a claim for fraud against an insurer for allegedly charging smoking insurance rates for non-smoking juveniles, but sustained the claim for breach of contract.
Progressive's failure to participate in settlement supports dismissal of subrogation claim
From recent issues of New York Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss made by a school bus owner and driver who were sued by an auto insurer as subrogee of its insured. The insurer sought recovery of medical expenses paid to its insured in treatment of injuries sustained by the insured's minor son in an accident involving the school bus. Because the insurer failed to participate in the settlement of a related personal injury action, its only remedy was against its insured for fatally impairing its right of subrogation.
Fraudulent inducement claim barred by statute of limitations
From recent issues of Texas Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance agent and viatical settlement company who were sued by the purchaser of a viatical settlement policy for fraudulent inducement. Because the policyholder did not allege affirmative acts by the agent or the company following the initial sale of the policy, he failed to demonstrate that an applicable statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment.
Allstate owes duty to defend despite policy's motor vehicle exclusion
From recent issues of Texas Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled an insurer failed to establish its right to summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to defend its insureds in a negligence action. The insureds alleged a potentially covered occurrence and the policy's motor vehicle exclusion did not preclude coverage.