Coverage & Claims

Subscribe to Coverage & Claims via RSS

In KAIROS SHIPPING LTD & STANDARD CLUB LTD V ENKA & CO LLC & ORS 2014 EWCA Civ 217, Karios sought a declaration that it was entitled to constitute a limitation fund
(a fund providing a maximum limit for its claims liability under the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976) by means of a guarantee in the form of a letter of undertaking provided by a protection and indemnity (P&I) club. …
Read More UK: Court Of Appeal Rules a Limitation Fund Can Be a Guarantee as an Alternative to a Payment Into Court

In Intervest Construction of Jax v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., the Florida Supreme Court considered insurance policy language that called for a self-insured retention to be exhausted by “payments made by the insured.” …
Read More The Florida Supreme Court Takes the “Self” Out of “Self-Insured Retention” and Rules that the Insured’s Self-Insured Retention Can Be Satisfied by Payment by Someone Other Than the Insured

In a 2-1 decision released on February 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court below and declared that the term “direct contributing properties” was unambiguous in the context of a policy that provided contingent business interruption coverage. Accordingly, the court found that the insured was not entitled to coverage when its production facility was knocked offline for several months following an explosion at a natural gas producer’s facility. …
Read More Fourth Circuit Declares “Direct Contributing Properties” Unambiguous In Context of CBI Coverage

In Impact Funding Solutions Limited (Impact) v. Barrington Support Services Limited (Barrington) v. AIG Europe Limited (AIG) (third party) [2013] EWHC 4005 (QB), the Court had previously ordered that Barrington (a company providing legal services) pay Impact (a third party litigation funder) £581,353.80 in damages for Barrington’s breaches of a Funding Agreement between Barrington and Impact. Under the Funding Agreement, Impact would provide a loan to Barrington’s clients to fund personal injury claims. …
Read More UK: Case Illustrates Need for Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 to be Enacted

The Southern District of New York has issued an interesting opinion for allocation disputes decided under Massachusetts law. The case, which concerns long-tail environmental damage, is The Narragansett Electric Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., No. 11-8299 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2014). A copy of the opinion is available here. …
Read More New York Federal Court, Applying Massachusetts Law, Holds that Defense Costs Should be Allocated by the Joint and Several Method Rather than the Pro Rata Method

New York’s highest court has reversed itself on an important duty to defend opinion. In K2 Inv. Group, et al. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., (Feb. 18, 2014), available here, the Court of Appeals held that an insurer which breaches its duty to defend does not lose its right to rely on policy exclusions as a defense to indemnity. …
Read More New York’s Highest Court Holds that Breach of Duty to Defend does not Prevent Insurer from Relying on Policy Exclusions to Dispute Duty to Indemnify

This past Friday, the Texas Supreme Court gave general liability insurers pointed guidance about what constitutes an “assumption of liability” for purposes of a contractual liability exclusion. …
Read More Texas High Court Rules That Contractor Does Not “Assume Liability” When Agreeing To Perform Work In Good & Workmanlike Manner

While interpreting a policy governed by Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit found ambiguity based on two “plausible” interpretations and found coverage, a finding based on language that appears to have been construed in isolation and without regard to the purpose or pricing of the policy. That case was National Casualty Co. v. White Mountains Reinsurance Co., no. 11-3158 (7th Cir. Oct. 30, 2013).
Read More Based on a Doubtful “Plausible” Reading of an Insurance Policy, the Seventh Circuit Finds Coverage

The Court of Appeal in European Risk Insurance Company HF v Collette Ann McManus & Ors [2013] EWHC 18 (Ch), has upheld a High Court judge’s decisions to a) refuse declaratory relief and b) award the claimants 60% of the costs of the hearing, stating that the first instance judge had given detailed and rational explanations for her decision to withhold the declaratory relief sought and that it could see no basis for interfering with this exercise of her discretion on either this or the issue of costs. …
Read More UK: Notification of ‘Circumstances’ Need Not Specify An Incident