Coverage & Claims

Subscribe to Coverage & Claims via RSS

Recently, the Delaware Superior Court, in a case entitled HLTH Corp. v. AESIC, C.A. No. 07C-09-102 RRC, declined to follow the holdings of Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, 161 Cal.App.4th 184 (4th Dist. 2008) and Comerica Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 498 F.Supp.2d 1019 (E.D. Mich. 2007) on the following issue:  where an insured settles with a primary insurer and/or certain underlying excess insurers for less than the full limits of liability of those policies, what are an excess insurer’s obligations to its insured? …
Read More Delaware Court Weighs In on Fill the Gap Issue; Declines to Follow Qualcomm and Comerica

In James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Engineering, Inc., No. 07-13207 (11th Cir. August 20, 2008), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a Florida state appellate court erred by refusing to give effect to an absolute pollution exclusion in a professional liability policy. …
Read More Environmental Claims – 11th Circuit Applies Absolute Pollution Exclusion

On certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas recently held that, when a policy does not otherwise specify, damages under an occurrence-based general liability policy “occur”, and an insurer’s duty to defend is triggered, on the date when the injury happens and not on the date the injury is discovered. …
Read More Under Occurrence Policy, Damage Occurred and Insurer’s Duty to Defend was Triggered On Date When the Injury Happened, Not Date of Discovery

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently remanded a choice-of-law determination to the district court for further proceedings because there was conflicting evidence about the principal place of business of one insured and the conflict could not be resolved on the paper record.
Read More Federal Appeals Court Vacates Summary Judgment Decision Where Conflicting Evidence Regarding Principal Place Business of Insured Precluded Determinative Choice of Law Decision

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently denied a motion to strike and allowed a plaintiff to pursue treble punitive damages against his insurer for the insurer’s alleged bad faith. 

…
Read More California Federal Court: Insured Plaintiff Can Seek Treble Punitive Damages For Insurer’s Alleged Bad Faith

In Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Co., No. 07-22988-CIV, 2008 WL 2645680 (S.D. Fla., Jun. 26, 2008), a Florida federal court found that financial or contractual documents between an insurer and its adjusting agent are not discoverable in a coverage action, but the agent may be deposed as to his knowledge of financial incentives, and such testimony may be admissible for impeachment purposes. …
Read More Florida District Court Disallows Production of Documents Regarding Agent’s “Loss Ratio Bonuses” But Holds That Plaintiff May Nevertheless Depose Agent for Impeachment Purposes

In Allianz Insurance Co Egypt v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2008] EWHC 1127 (Comm), the English High Court was asked to examine the effect of the term “Deffered [sic] Premium Clause” in the reinsurance slip and to ascertain whether its inclusion was so uncertain as to be of no contractual effect and to make the whole contract ineffective. …
Read More UK: Construction of Deferred Premium Clause in Reinsurance Slip

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed the California district court’s decision in the case of Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. (click here to read our blog post about the district court’s decision and click here to read the Ninth Circuit’s opinion).  The Ninth Circuit held that Factory Mutual’s excess all risk policy’s flood exclusion was not ambiguous and served to exclude coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge to the insured’s shipyards. 

…
Read More Ninth Circuit Holds Flood Exclusion Clearly Barred Coverage for Katrina Storm Surge Losses