Insurance Law

Recent Posts

Ten Most Significant Insurance Coverage Decisions Of 2014 – What Could Have Been For The Contractual Liability Exclusion
Posted on 9 Dec 2014 by Randy J. Maniloff

Ewing Construction Company v. Amerisure Insurance Company, 420 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2014), [ enhanced version available to subscribers ], is a funny case. Not funny ha ha. Funny strange. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision was a very easy... Read More

When Is an Exclusion “Conspicuous, Plain and Clear”: There Is No Duty to Defend if There Is No Potential for Coverage
Posted on 20 Apr 2015 by Barry Zalma

Insurance policies must be interpreted with care. Since they are contracts of adhesion they are usually interpreted with a bias towards providing coverage for the insured. When an insured provides the information necessary to convince a court that there... Read More

Court Rejects 10,000 Page Pollution Exclusion
Posted on 23 Jul 2015 by Randy J. Maniloff

When it comes to how insurers have fared in Indiana, in their attempts to enforce the pollution exclusion, they are the mouse inside the boa tank at the pet store. Ironically, it could be the exact opposite. All insurers have to do is draft the pollution... Read More

Professional Services Exclusion Did Not Preclude Coverage for Misrepresentation Claim Against Insured
Posted on 18 Aug 2015 by Troutman Sanders

Corky McMillin Constr. Servs. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. , 597 Fed. Appx. 925 (9th Cir. 2015), [subscribers can access an enhanced version of this opinion: | Lexis Advance ]. In Corky McMillin , the Ninth Circuit, applying California law... Read More

Insurer Had No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Trademark Infringement Claim Because It Fell Within the Scope of an Intellectual Property Exclusion
Posted on 26 Aug 2014 by Troutman Sanders

North Coast Med., Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20701 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2014), [ enhanced version available to subscribers ]. In North Coast Medical , the district court held that the insurer had no duty to defend... Read More

No Surprise – Raw Sewage Is A Pollutant
Posted on 4 Apr 2012 by Barry Zalma

By Barry Zalma, Attorney and Consultant The Colorado Court of Appeal was called upon to determine whether an "absolute pollution" exclusion (APE) applied to a suit for bodily injuries exposed to raw sewage. Plaintiffs, Shadi Figuli, Joshua... Read More

Principles Have An A.L.Eye On The “Innocent Co-Insured” Rules: Set Sights On Adoption Of The Minority Position
Posted on 27 Oct 2014 by Randy J. Maniloff

Lately I’ve been using the forum that Coverage Opinions provides me to take issue with certain draft sections of the American Law Institute’s “Principles of the Law of Liability Insurance” Project. In general, my beef has been... Read More

Appeals Court Swats Policyholders: Pollution Exclusion Applies To Flies
Posted on 26 Aug 2015 by Randy J. Maniloff

It has become difficult these days to find a pollution exclusion case that warrants discussion. In general, while each case is different, they also often have many similarities. Does the exclusion apply narrowly and only to traditional environmental pollution... Read More

Court Stays Declaratory Relief Action Pending Resolution of the Underlying Action Based on a Finding that Application of Professional Services Exclusion Could Materially Impact the Underlying Action
Posted on 1 Sep 2015 by Troutman Sanders

In Golden Eagle , [subscribers can access an enhanced version of this opinion: | Lexis Advance ], the Northern District of California granted an insured’s motion to stay proceedings in a declaratory relief action pending the resolution... Read More

Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog: Minnesota Supreme Court Applies Pollution Exclusion to Carbon Monoxide
Posted on 11 Jun 2013 by Brian Margolies

Brian Margolies, Partner, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP In its recent decision in Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wolters , 2013 Minn. LEXIS 304 (Minn. May 31, 2013) [ enhanced version available to subscribers ], the Minnesota... Read More

SNR Denton LLP on Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co.: Georgia Supreme Court Seems To Hold That Liability Insurance Disclaimer on One Ground Forfeits Other Grounds
Posted on 12 Nov 2012 by Ronald D. Kent

By Ronald D. Kent, Partner, SNR Denton In Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co., the Georgia Supreme Court held that a liability insurance coverage disclaimer could not reserve a right to assert additional grounds later. If taken literally, this apparently... Read More

Business Pursuits Exclusion: Always Something Interesting
Posted on 3 Sep 2015 by Randy J. Maniloff

Cases involving the potential applicability of a Business Pursuits exclusion, in a homeowners policy, can be interesting. Some people operate a variety of unusual home-based businesses. Suit is filed against the homeowner. He or she seeks coverage under... Read More

Don’t Let a Viable Defendant Walk Free
Posted on 7 May 2014 by Barry Zalma

I have many times in this space cautioned against giving up the ability to sue and collect from a viable defendant with assets to seek damages from an insurer. In Jennifer A. Stephens, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Eugene Becker... Read More

No Cover for Incorrectly Performed Work: Insurance is Not a Guarantee of Good Workmanship
Posted on 13 Apr 2015 by Barry Zalma

Contractors and developers purchase insurance to protect against bodily injury or property damage caused by their negligence. It does not, nor could it do so and still be insurance, guarantee the quality of workmanship of the insured. The policies clearly... Read More

McCarter & English on the Continuing Debate Over the Breadth and Limits of the Exclusion for "Water Under the Ground Surface" in First-Party Policies
Posted on 12 May 2011 by LexisNexis Community Staff

By Sherilyn Pastor, Brian J. Osias, Jerry P. Sattin, and Cynthia S. Betz, Attorneys, McCarter & English, LLP The insurance industry has done little or nothing to resolve an ongoing dispute about policy language related to a subsurface water exclusion... Read More