In dealing a blow to the insurance industry, the California Supreme Court, in Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co., recently held that the existence of a “separate insurance” clause in a homeowners’ policy precluded the insurer from asserting the policy’s intentional acts exclusion to deny coverage for the mother (the named insured) based on the alleged intentional [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
insurance coverage,
Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co.,
policy interpretation
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
