The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an “insured v. insured” clause exclusion in a D&O policy for claims asserted by an insured against an insured did not preclude the insurer from paying for the entire defense costs incurred by insured and non-insured claimants.
Read More California Federal Court Rules that “Insured v. Insured” Exclusion Does Not Preclude Insurer’s Payments of Defense Costs in Claim Brought Jointly by Insureds and Non-insureds
Coverage & Claims
Chinese Drywall – Legislation Introduced That Would Prevent Chinese Drywall Related Homeowners Policy Cancellations or Non-renewals
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
On November 17, 2009, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives that would ban insurance companies from canceling, or refusing to renew, the policies of homeowners as the result of Chinese manufactured drywall in the home. …
Read More Chinese Drywall – Legislation Introduced That Would Prevent Chinese Drywall Related Homeowners Policy Cancellations or Non-renewals
Chinese Drywall – Consumer Product Safety Commission Finds Link Between Corrosion and Chinese Manufactured Drywall
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
On Monday November 23, 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) issued a press statement and study results demonstrating a “strong association” between homes with the Chinese manufactured drywall and levels of hydrogen sulfide and corrosion of metals in those homes.
NY Court of Appeals Applies Pennsylvania Law to Bar Coverage For Malpractice Claim Pursuant To Prior Knowledge Exclusion
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Reversing the intermediate appellate court, New York’s highest court recently granted summary judgment in favor of two excess insurers based upon their policies’ prior knowledge exclusion.
NY Lower Court Holds That Insurance Law § 3420(a) Applies to Lawyer’s Claims-Made Malpractice Policy
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The New York Supreme Court, Erie County, recently held that a lawyers’ professional liability policy constitutes a “policy or contract insuring against liability for injury to person” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 3420(a)(3)-(4).
UK: Court of Appeal Decides Both English and French Law Are Relevant in Dispute Between English Claimants and French Insurers
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Posted in Coverage & Claims, United Kingdom
We have previously reported on the first instance decision of Maher v Groupama Est [2009] EWHC 38 (QB) in which the English Court considered two preliminary issues in proceedings brought by English claimants in London, against the French insurer, Groupama, for damages they incurred in an accident in France, in which the French insured was killed.
UK: Court of Appeal Holds that a Cause of Action May Arise Upon Inception of an Insurance Policy
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Posted in Coverage & Claims, United Kingdom
A cause of action in tort may accrue at the time an insurance policy was issued, and not when a claim could eventually be made under that policy, if a negligent failure led to the policy being issued.
Third Circuit Holds That Lack of Coverage Precludes Bad Faith Claim and That Failure to Follow “Best Practices” Is Not Bad Faith
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a policy’s exclusion clearly precluded coverage, the insurer could not be held liable under Pennsylvania’s statute for bad faith denial of coverage.
EAPD WEBINAR LINK: Up Against a Chinese Drywall – Recent Developments in the Ongoing Products Liability and Coverage Litigation
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The Insurance and Reinsurance Department of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge invites you to view “Up Against A Chinese Drywall: Recent Developments in the Ongoing Products Liability and Coverage Litigation” – a complimentary 60 minute webinar.
California Federal Court Holds That D&O Insurer is Permitted to Rescind Policy Based on Nondisclosure in Application
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the court held that an insurer does not have to provide D&O insurance coverage to a group of bondholders who took on the responsibilities of the bankrupt insured. The ruling was based on the insured’s failure to disclose in the policy application a written demand letter alleging a breach of fiduciary duties.