In World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., S10Q341 (Ga. May 3, 2010), the Georgia Supreme Court held that an insurer waives its right to deny defense or indemnity obligations if it fails to timely reserve rights and that the policyholder need not show prejudice for that rule to apply.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
World Harvest Church
In a recent New Jersey appellate decision entitled Somerset Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 605, A-6214-08T2 (App.Div. Mar. 22, 2010), the court was faced with the question of whether a bodily injury exclusion in Somerset Medical Center’s directors and officers liability insurance policy excluded coverage for the negligent hiring and supervision of a [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D&O insurance,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
negligent hiring,
new jersey,
Somerset Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk
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
When policyholders are faced with litigation and discovery requests in that litigation, it is common for disputes as to the privileged nature of various communications to arise. Often, those disputes focus on an underlying plaintiff’s efforts to discover communications between the policyholder or its insurer(s) on matters of interest to the plaintiff and the development [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
In Re Tetra Technologies Inc.,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
policyholder communications
In recent years, the insurance industry has added an exclusion to many D & O policies limiting coverage for claims arising from suits alleging that the company paid an inadequate price for the purchase of its own securities. This exclusion, which is known as a “bump up” or “inadequate consideration” exclusion, often amends the definition [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D & O,
Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
Directors & Officers,
Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.,
inadequate consideration,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
Keith Meyer
According to the Fifth Circuit in Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Case No. 10-20069 (decided March 15, 2010), an insurance company must bring a “separate coverage proceeding” under an exclusion providing that wrongful acts must be “determined . . . in fact” before refusing to advance defense costs. Under standard “dishonesty” exclusions [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
"in fact" determination,
D&O,
dishonesty exclusion,
duty to advance defense costs,
insurance recovery,
Lloyd's of London,
Pendergest-Holt,
separate coverage proceeding
The United States Supreme Court just opened the door for more insurance coverage lawsuits to be brought in Federal District Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court, in Hertz v. Friend, 08-1107, ruled that a corporation’s principal place of business is where the company’s executives work, thereby simplifying the process for determining the citizenship [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
Abbey Company v. Lexington Insurance Company,
diversity jurisdiction,
Hertz v. Friend,
insurance coverage,
insurance coverage lawsuits,
insurance recovery,
removal to federal court
