A New York appellate court recently held that an insurer’s liability for certain underlying lead paint claims was limited to a single per-occurrence limit, enforcing a policy’s noncumulation clause and finding that the claims arose from the same occurrence. See Nesmith, et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 12-00182 (4th Dep’t Feb. 1, 2013). 
Read More New York State Court Enforces Policy’s Noncumulation Clause and Finds That Multiple Lead Paint Claims Arose From the Same Occurrence

On March 7, 2013, Washington State’s highest court dealt a blow to liability insurers seeking to recover defense costs for uncovered claims. The court, in a 5-4 decision available here, held that where an insurer elects to defend its insured under a reservation of rights, it cannot force the insured to remit those defense costs if a court later determines that the insurer had no duty to defend. 
Read More The Supreme Court of Washington Holds That an Insurer Cannot Recoup Defense Costs After Defending Under a Reservation of Rights, Notwithstanding a Determination That There is No Coverage

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently held, in an unpublished decision, that an insurer breached its duty to defend a town against a suit filed by the sister of a man wrongly convicted for murder, in Waters v. Western World Insurance Company, No. 11-P-2124. A copy of the decision from the official Massachusetts reports website is available here
Read More Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds Duty to Defend Wrongful Conviction Suit

In a report issued last week analyzing Superstorm Sandy, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reviewed why Sandy was downgraded from hurricane status to a post-tropical cyclone before it made landfall in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere in the northeast, and made recommendations for changes in definitions and procedures going forward. 
Read More Lessons Learned from Sandy: National Hurricane Center Report Highlights Issue of Whether “Hurricane” Warnings and Definitions Should Be Modified

A federal court in Manhattan recently found that a policyholder’s untimely notice of a roof collapse relieved a general liability insurance carrier of any duty to defend or indemnify. The decision is notable because it involved a carrier’s late notice defense under New York Insurance Law § 3420(a)(5), which changed New York’s long-standing no-prejudice rule for policies issued on or after January 17, 2009. 
Read More New York Federal Court Finds That Insurer Was Prejudiced By Late Notice of an Insured’s Claim, Relieving Insurer of its Duty to Defend or Indemnify

In (1) Michael Nulty Deceased (2) Wing Bat Security Limited (3) National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Limited (NIG) v Milton Keynes Borough Council (the Council) [2013] EWCA Civ 15, professional indemnity insurer NIG unsuccessfully appealed against a decision which saw the actions of its insured, an electrical engineer, described as the most probable cause of a fire in Milton Keynes in 2005. The standard of proof in civil cases in England and Wales is the balance of probabilities. 
Read More UK: Court of Appeal Considers Balance of Probabilities

In a recent decision, an Illinois appellate court determined that the collapse of a porch, resulting in injury or death to more than forty individuals, constituted a single “occurrence” for the purposes of determining coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy. With this decision, the court recognized an important limitation on the applicability of a test previously adopted by the state’s Supreme Court for determining the number of occurrences implicated by a claim. 
Read More Illinois Appeals Court Declines To Extend “Time and Space Test” For Determining Number Of Occurrences To Cases Involving Single Negligent Act

The Supreme Court has for the first time confirmed the existence of dual vicarious liability in the landmark ruling of The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants (FC) and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others [2012] UKSC 56. 
Read More UK: Supreme Court Child Abuse Ruling Has Important Implications for Insurance Industry