News & Analysis as of

Fraud Duty to Defend

Fraud is the making of false representations or engaging in deceptive behavior in order to unlawfully secure financial or personal gain. 
Rivkin Radler LLP

The Title Reporter — Spring 2023

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Title Reporter: A Legal Update for the Title Insurance Industry: •An appellate court in Arkansas, affirming a trial court’s decision, has ruled that a title insurer had properly...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Insurance Update - February 2022

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Causation, an issue courts often wrestle with when deciding insurance coverage issues, lands the starring role in our February Insurance Update. •A county experienced higher costs due to the opioid crisis. Does its...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

A Cautionary Tale and a Wistful Remembrance About Settlement Security

Our language around settlements connotes war and peace – in settling we are “buying our peace” or “ceasing hostilities.” The old saw is that a good settlement leaves no one satisfied, but in truth, a good settlement leaves...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Eleventh Circuit Affirms “Exceptional Case” Ruling: Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Construction Debris Claim Where Amended...

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Eleventh Circuit Affirms “Exceptional Case” Ruling: Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Construction Debris Claim Where Amended Complaint Omitted Crucial Fact Implicating Pollution Exclusion The Eleventh Circuit, affirming the...more

Cozen O'Connor

Texas Supreme Court Crafts “Undisputed Evidence of Collusive Fraud” Exception to Eight-Corners Rule

Cozen O'Connor on

In Texas, and as a general rule, only the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the petition against the insured are relevant in deciding whether the duty to defend applies. Richards v. State Farm Lloyds,...more

Jaburg Wilk

Arizona Supreme Court Holds Contractual Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply to Breach of Duty to Reasonably Construct Home

Jaburg Wilk on

The Holding - In Teufel v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 244 Ariz. 383, 419 P.3d 546 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court recently held that a Contractual Liability Exclusion in homeowner policies did not apply to a claim for...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Insurance Recovery Law - March 2016

High Times in the Insurance Industry: Colorado Federal Court Considers Coverage for Medical Marijuana Business - Why it matters: With legalized marijuana businesses booming, a new decision from a Colorado federal court...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Insurance Recovery Law - January 2016

Despite Finding Policy Application Misrepresentation, Jury Rules Against Policy Rescission - Why it matters: A federal jury concluded that Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company did not have a valid basis to rescind the...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Insurance Recovery Law - October 2015

Unfair Trade Practices Exclusion Doesn't Cover Consumer Protection Suits - Why it matters: An unfair trade practices clause did not bar coverage for a policyholder's subsidiary, an Illinois federal court ruled, ordering...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Insurance Recovery Law - August 2015

Insured's Notice to Broker Satisfied Policy Requirements, Illinois Court Rules - Why it matters: An insured's notice to its broker satisfied the policy's notice requirements, an Illinois appellate panel recently...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide