What is an Appraisal?
New York’s Highest Court Holds That Portion Of Premium Need Not Be Refunded For Death During Policy Period Of Universal Life Policy- The Joan C. Lupe Family Trust purchased a policy under which Lincoln Life and Annuity...more
In Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Carmichael, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, applying Alabama law, entered summary judgment ruling that Nationwide Fire Insurance Co. had no duty to...more
SPOTLIGHT: Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms No Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims - In Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Motel Management Services Inc., the Court of Appeals granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings...more
A few years back, we discussed the Montana Supreme Court’s Parker decision, which interpreted an earth movement exclusion in a first-party claim under a homeowner’s policy. There, a boulder dislodged from a hillside and...more
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight decisions from the last year that you should know about — and a few pending cases to watch. As our picks for “Cases to Know” (below) indicate,...more
Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v....more
In this month's edition of our Privacy & Cybersecurity Update, we examine the European Data Protection Board's published opinions on data protection impact assessments, an Ohio court's ruling that bitcoin is covered insured...more
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
Kostin v. Pacific Indemnity is a recent federal decision from Connecticut denying insurance coverage that should be of particular interest to those impacted by a Ponzi scheme. In a coverage dispute arising out of the Madoff...more
Can something short of the filing of a complaint trigger an insurer’s duty to defend? It’s not an idle question. Uncertainty on this issue could produce an unintended breach, and, in some jurisdictions, breach of the duty to...more
The backdrop to this decision is an interesting and unfortunate one involving a divorce, allegations of illegal obscene material possessed by the former husband, followed by a civil lawsuit between the former spouses after...more
On July 27, 2016, the United States District Court for South Carolina ordered an insurer to turn over its privileged communications. The Court explained that the insurer waived the protections afforded under the...more
In Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, 87 Mass App Ct. 510 (June 17, 2015), the Massachusetts Appeals Court discussed several interesting insurance coverage issues when it addressed a...more
California Court: Rejected Demand Within Policy Limits Not Necessary for Bad Faith Claim - Why it matters: Insurers must proceed with caution when they become aware that a settlement within policy limits is possible,...more
In Gonzalez v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. H039368, filed 2/5/15), a California appeals court ruled that a personal umbrella policy's broader coverage gave rise to a duty to defend sexual molestation allegations that were...more
REAL PROPERTY UPDATE - Contract Interpretation: trial court erred by interpreting declaration in way that rendered provisions meaningless – Bethany Trace Owners’ Association, Inc. v Whispering Lakes I, LLC, et al., No....more