In Clarendon America Ins. Co. v. North American Capacity Ins. Co., Case No. E048176 (Fourth Appellate District, Div. Two, July 7, 2010), the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant insurer North American Capacity (NAC) concerning the application of the policy’s self-insured retention (“SIR”) clause and the [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
Duty to defend,
insurance coverage,
policy intepretation
Although beer pong has made a number of curious contributions to American jurisprudence (see, e.g., University of Kansas v. Sinks, 644 F.Supp. 2d 1287 (D.Kan. 2008), involving trademark issues over the sale of Kansas Co-Ed Naked Beer Pong t shirts; Crusselle v. State, 2010 Ga. App. 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010), in which beer pong [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
Copp v. Nationwide Insurance Company,
Crusselle v. State,
Duty to defend,
general liability,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
policy interpretation,
University of Kansas v. Sinks,
Virginia Supreme Court
The court in Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 5:06-CV-1117, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28756 (N.D.N.Y March 25, 2010), held that two CGL insurers were obligated to pay for the entire cost of defending thousands of underlying asbestos bodily injury claims, without any contribution from their mutual insured, because they could not [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
allocation,
asbestos,
duty to advance defense costs,
Duty to defend,
long-tail,
New York Insurance Law,
potential for coverage,
potentiality standard,
pro rata
In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Wilson, Docket No. 108799 (Ill. 5/20/2010) (Ill. 2010), the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the appellate court finding that, “if an insurance company has a right to present evidence beyond the complaint in the underlying lawsuit to show that it has no duty to defend, the insured has [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
conduct exclusion,
Duty to defend,
extrinsic evidence,
intentional act exclusion
A recent decision from Judge Berman in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, MBIA v. Federal Insurance, Case No. 08 Civ. 4313 (RMB) (decided Dec. 30, 2009), represents one of the first judicial forays into the white-hot issue of directors’ and officers’ (“D&O”) insurance coverage for the defense costs [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D&O insurance,
directors and officers,
duty to advance defense costs,
Duty to defend,
entity coverage,
Federal Insurance Company,
Investigative Costs Coverage,
MBIA,
shareholder derivative action,
special litigation committee,
sublimit
In Uhlich Childrens Network v National Union, No. 1-08-3400 (1st Dist. 3d Div. 2/3/2010), the Illinois Appellate Court applied the rule of estoppel to prevent a claims-made insurer from denying coverage based on the insured’s failure to report the claim during the policy period. Although the Northern District of Illinois had applied the estoppel rule [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
Claims-Made Policies,
Duty to defend,
Employment Practices Liability Policy,
estoppel
