In Dunlop Haywards (DHL), Erinaceous Commercial Property Services Limited v Erinaceous Insurance Services Limited and Lockton Companies International Limited [2008] EWHC 520, the Claimants instructed the Defendant broker (Erinaceous Insurance) to renew professional indemnity insurance for the companies in the Claimants’ group and to procure a primary layer of insurance cover of £10 million and an excess layer of £10 million.
Coverage & Claims
The English Court of Appeal Construes the Meaning of a Clause for Joint Insurance in a Construction Contract
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Posted in Coverage & Claims, United Kingdom
In Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 286, Tyco had negligently caused damage to a Rolls-Royce plant during the course of constructing a sprinkler system. Tyco admitted negligence but claimed that it was not liable for the damage because Rolls-Royce was obliged, by virtue of a provision in the construction contract, to take out joint insurance indemnifying the parties in respect of Specified Perils, which included the said damage.
Kentucky Federal Court: Bad Faith Discovery Not Limited To Pre-Litigation Conduct
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
The Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently denied a defendant insurer’s request to limit discovery in a bad-faith case to its pre-litigation conduct and to not include conduct post-commencement of litigation.
…
Read More Kentucky Federal Court: Bad Faith Discovery Not Limited To Pre-Litigation Conduct
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Jury May Not Consider General Deterrence When Setting Amounts of Punitive Damages Awards
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act allows punitive damages to be entered for the purposes of punishing and deterring only a specific wrongdoer, not for general deterrence.
Ohio Federal Court Denies D&O Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
An Ohio federal court recently denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad faith claim brought by its insured on the basis that, accepting the insured’s allegations as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the insurer could not show that the insured had failed to state a claim for bad faith. …
Read More Ohio Federal Court Denies D&O Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim
Federal Court Rules that Insured v. Insured Exclusion Applies to Claims By Shareholders in Imprimis Action
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Earlier this year, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted an insurer summary judgment, ruling that claims brought by shareholders of First New England Dental Centers (“FNEDC”) against an officer of FNEDC were excluded under the policy’s so-called Insured versus Insured exclusion.
Illinois Federal Court: Insured v. Insured Exclusion Precludes Coverage For Action Brought By Receiver
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
An Illinois federal court recently granted an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an insured v. insured exclusion, which the court found was triggered by a claim brought “on behalf of” the insured by the insured’s receiver.
Georgia State Appeals Court: Settlement Negotiations Do Not Toll Policy’s Time Limit on Bringing Suit Where Insurer Explicitly Reserved Its Rights
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Posted in Coverage & Claims, United States
A Georgia state court of appeals recently rejected an insured’s argument that an insurance policy’s time limit for bringing suit should be treated as tolled during the period that the insured and the insurer are engaged in settlement negotiations.
California State Court: Coverage Under an Excess Policy is not Triggered until the Underlying Insurer Either Pays Its Own Limits in “Full” or is “Held Liable” For the Full Amount of Its Limits
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Posted in Coverage & Claims, United States
On March 25, 2008, the California Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court judgment holding that coverage under an excess policy was not triggered because the primary insurer had neither paid the “full amount” of its policy limits nor become legally obligated to pay the full amount of the primary limits pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement.
Oregon Supreme Court: Punitive Damages in Insurance Bad Faith Case Limited to Four Times Actual Damages
By Troutman Pepper Locke on
Oregon’s highest court recently found that a $20.7 million dollar punitive damages award in an insurance bad faith case, which was approximately sixteen times the actual damages awarded in the case, was excessive and likely unconstitutional.