AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights - Episode 1: A Primer for Providers When Insurance Companies Refuse to Pay
D&O Insurance Myths (Part 2)
D&O Insurance Myths (Part 1)
Standard Formula Podcast | Reinsurance and Risk Transfer: Risk Mitigation Under the Solvency II Regime
Hinshaw Releases Second Edition of Duty to Defend: A Fifty-State Survey
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV – Transaction Insurance Solutions
Loading and Unloading Under GL and Auto Policies: 2022
D&O Insurance: Better to Have it And Not Need it Than Need it And Not Have it
Protect Your Construction Project: Top 10 Insurance Provisions to Know
NGE OnDemand: The Importance of Timely Reporting Occurrences, Claims and Suits to Insurers with Paul Walker-Bright
NGE On Demand: Insurance and Indemnity Issues for Family Offices with Angela Elbert
On-Demand Webinar | Insurance Issues Faced by Employers in Times of COVID-19
Ledgers and Law: Roadblocks Facing the Cannabis Industry
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
What to Do When Your Insurance Carrier Says No: How to Protect Yourself from Coverage Denials
In this month’s update, we discuss Russian-seized planes, Starbucks-caused traffic jams, a squabble over the use of a family name, a restaurant’s pandemic-based loss, a poorly built house, and whether insurance covers any of...more
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed a policyholder's right to reach excess liability coverage by providing key guidance as to the proper exhaustion method for continuous injury claims spanning...more
A commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy may provide coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions, the California Supreme Court has ruled, answering a certified question from the Ninth U.S....more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decision last week: Yahoo, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. S253593. Yahoo!’s insurer, National Union, refused to indemnify Yahoo! in...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
In November 2018, we noted that the California Supreme Court had agreed to resolve Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a case that hinged on the importance and application of California’s notice-prejudice rule....more
On January 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: Does a commercial liability policy that covers “personal injury,” defined as “injury… arising out of… [o]ral or...more
Does the coverage in commercial general liability (CGL) policies for violations of the right to privacy extend to unwanted intrusions, or is it limited to the disclosure of personal information to a third party? On a recent...more
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five (actually, seven) decisions from the last year that you should know about, and five pending cases—all before state high courts—to keep an eye on. The...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that under California law, there was an unresolved question as to whether a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy covers an...more
Before a court can resolve a dispute, it often needs to determine what law applies to that dispute. In certain insurance cases, that question will appear to have an easy answer. Some policies include explicit choice-of-law...more
The California Supreme Court answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question in Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction. The court rephrased the question presented to it as: “When a third party sues an...more
In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc., No. S236765 (Cal. Jun. 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court found that an insured sued on the basis that it negligently hired, retained, and...more
By statute, California law holds that willful misconduct—where an insured intends to cause someone harm—is not insurable as a matter of public policy. For years, insurance companies have sought to expand this prohibition to...more
The California Supreme Court recently granted review in Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. Actavis, Inc., a very unusual case where two counties sued the manufacturers of opiate medicines for allegedly engaging in a...more
In this month's highlights, a federal court rules that insurance coverage was triggered for the defense of garment hang tag "advertisements" in a trademark/copyright and unfair competition lawsuit…the California Supreme Court...more
Asset purchase and sale transactions are a preferred structure for many corporate deals. For a variety of reasons, it may be prudent for businesses or product lines to be transferred through these transactions, and an asset...more
We recently wrote about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court to limit the enforceability of clauses in third party liability insurance policies that prohibit the policyholder from...more
Good News for Corporate Policyholders: Insurer Cannot Refuse Coverage Based on Insured's Assignment of Rights Under Policies After Loss Has Occurred - Why it matters: Reversing its holding in a 2003 case, the Supreme...more
Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California changed the law governing anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies. Twelve years ago, in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity...more
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that...more
In a unanimous decision that will have a serious impact on long-tail exposures, the California Supreme Court in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Hartford Acc. & Indem.) has determined that policyholders may transfer liability...more
In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court on August 20, 2015 in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the court removed a significant obstacle facing companies that want to assign their interests in a...more
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and...more