Coverage & Claims

Subscribe to Coverage & Claims via RSS

Insurers can take comfort that their decision to bring a rescission action against a Massachusetts insured will not itself effect a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, at least in cases where the carrier’s process for deciding whether to sue is not relevant to the rescission claim itself. The federal district court in Massachusetts recently considered that precise question in Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. Lodigiani, No. 13-cv-30138-MGM (D.Mass. Aug. 12, 2014).
Read More Massachusetts Federal Court Rules That Insurer’s Decision To Commence Rescission Action Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege

In Betty Sophia Smith Ferguson and others v J & A Lawson (Joiners) Limited [2014] CSIH 82, Lady Paton of the Court of Session Inner House dismissed an appeal from the defendants, who argued that the Lord Ordinary had erred in law at first instance.
Read More UK: Scottish appeal court upholds judge’s decision to permit a time-barred claim to proceed

In Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (The DC Merwestone) ([2014] EWCA Civ 1349) the appellant shipowners appealed a decision made on the basis of the fraudulent devices principle discussed obiter in the case of Agapitos v Agnew (The Aegeon) (No.1) ([2002] EWCA Civ 247) that they could not recover losses from the respondent hull and machinery underwriters. The Court of Appeal chose to apply The Aegeon and dismissed the appeal.
Read More UK: Court of Appeal considers application of the doctrine of “fraudulent devices

Following the Supreme Court’s determination as to jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the substantive issues, the case of Starlight Shipping v Allianz Marine ([2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm)) returned to the Commercial Court for two further issues to be decided.
Read More UK: Commercial Court Awards Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance Order to Insurers

The federal district court in Massachusetts recently declared that a general liability policyholder’s construction of a policy exclusion was irrational, with the result that the carrier owed no coverage for an underlying personal injury suit. In the course of its discussion, the court also highlighted First Circuit precedent for the proposition that the construction of an insurance policy should comport with “common sense.”…
Read More Massachusetts Federal Court Declares Insured’s Construction Of General Liability Policy “Irrational”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Treasury Department recently reaffirmed that the “[t]he Secretary has not determined that there has been an ‘act of terrorism’ under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act” with respect to the April 15, 2013, Boston Marathon bombings.
Read More U.S. Treasury Department Maintains Stance on Boston Marathon Bombings With Respect to Certification Under TRIA

Recently, a Massachusetts federal court issued an opinion limiting the ability of one insurer to seek reimbursement from another insurer under the doctrine of equitable contribution. In the insurance context, equitable contribution allows an insurer to seek contribution from a co-insurer after the insurer pays more than its proportionate share of a loss on a claim that both insurers are obligated to indemnify or defend. …
Read More Massachusetts Federal Court Rules Limits Equitable Contribution Between Insurers

On July 24, 2014, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an opinion arising out of a subcontractor’s clear-cutting of environmentally-sensitive property in Western Massachusetts. The decision in Pacific Indemnity Company v. Lampro, et al., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2014), is notable because the court declared, as a matter of law, that the subcontractor’s erroneous actions were not a fortuitous event for which liability insurance was designed but, rather, a normal, foreseeable, and expected incident of doing business. …
Read More Massachusetts Appeals Court Declares That Failure To Follow Contract Conditions Is Not An “Occurrence” Under Landscaper’s General Liability Insurance Policy

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that an insurer has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment action against another insurer of a common insured to determine the existence of a duty to defend and the allocation of defense costs among them. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, et al. v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., et al., No. S.C. 19089, — Conn. — (Conn. Aug. 5, 2014). A copy of the decision is available here. …
Read More Connecticut Supreme Court: Insurer Has Standing to Seek Declaratory Judgment Against Fellow Insurer of a Common Insured

In Robin & Barbara Bache and others v Zurich Insurance Plc [2014] EWHC 2430 (TCC), the court was asked to determine a preliminary issue concerning interpretation of a property development policy. The claimants agreed to lease flats yet to be built from a developer, paying a 10% deposit under the agreement. The defendant provided a policy to the developer, for the benefit of the claimants, which stated that “the policy protects you if your developer goes into liquidation…against the loss of contract exchange deposit”.   …
Read More UK: Technology and Construction Court Interprets Policy in Favour of Insured