Latest Posts › Duty to Defend

Share:

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

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

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

Insurance Recovery Law - September 2015

Exception to Mold Exclusion Requires Defense of Suit Alleging Injuries From Moldy Water - Why it matters: An exclusion for "Fungi or Bacteria" did not prevent a federal court judge in Tennessee from ordering an insurer...more

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

Insurance Recovery Law - July 2015 #3

Two Years, Too Long for Coverage Under Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy - Why it matters: Claims-made-and-reported policies require that the claim be both made against the insured and reported to the insurer within the...more

Insurance Recovery Law - April 2015 #2

Policyholder Can Keep Selected Counsel, Court Rules; Insurers’ Objection Too Late - Why it matters: A policyholder was able to maintain its selected defense counsel after a federal court judge ruled that the insurers’...more

Insurance Recovery Law - April 2015

Legal Issues Not Proper Expert Testimony - Why it matters: As a good reminder concerning the boundaries for admissibility of expert opinions, a federal court in Texas recently granted a policyholder’s motion to strike an...more

Insurance Recovery Law - March 2015

New York Federal Court Rejects Insurer’s Request for Recoupment - Why it matters: The federal court, applying New York law, held that an energy drink manufacturer’s advertising coverage claim—arising from underlying...more

Insurance Recovery Law - January 2015 #2

More Important Rulings From J.P. Morgan's New York Coverage Litigation - Why it matters: A New York Appellate Court unanimously held that a group of insurers could not invoke a Dishonest Acts Exclusion in a...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- January 2015

Insured v. Insured Exclusion Ambiguous When Applied to FDIC, 11th Circuit Rules - Why it matters: In the continuing split among courts considering insured v. insured exclusions, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- December 2014

Texas Appeals Court Upholds $8.7M Verdict for Policyholder Against Broker - Why it matters: An appeals court in Texas upheld an $8.7 million jury verdict against a broker that procured coverage with significant...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- November 2014 #2

South Carolina Court Holds That Absent Substantial Prejudice, Late Notice Does Not Bar Insurer’s Coverage Obligations - Why it matters: A federal court in South Carolina ruled that absent a showing by an insurer...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- November 2014

Payment of Costs Doesn’t Preclude Unfair Trade Practices Claim Against Insurer - Why it matters: In a significant victory for policyholders, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that an insured had a valid unfair...more

Insured v. Insured Exclusion Ambiguous, California Court Finds: Bank Ds And Os Entitled to Coverage for FDIC Suit

Why it matters - In the latest decision to weigh in on the scope of the Insured v. Insured exclusion, a California court has held that it is ambiguous as applied to suits brought by the FDIC, and therefore does not...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- October 2014 #2

Court’s Decision Prompts Policyholders to Seek Defense Quickly or Risk Awaiting Conclusion of Coverage Action to See Reimbursement - Why it matters: A policyholder who does not act promptly to seek advancement...more

Insurance Recovery Law -- Oct 2014

Lack of Direct Contractual Relationship Doesn’t Doom Coverage - Why it matters: The companies involved in a workplace accident are additional insureds pursuant to a sub-subcontractor’s policy and the insurer...more

Insurance Recovery Law - July 2014 #3

Washington Supreme Court Rules That It Was Error To Delay Adjudication Of Insurer’s Duty To Defend, But Should Stay Discovery As To Insurer’s Coverage Defenses - Why it matters: The Washington Supreme Court...more

Insurance Recovery Law - July 2014

Second Circuit: Insurer Must Defend Where Factual Allegations Create a Possibility of Coverage - Why it matters: In a recent pro-policyholder decision, the Second Circuit, applying New York law, reminded...more

Insurance Recovery Law

Insurer Should Have Considered Extrinsic Facts When Determining Whether A Potential for Coverage Existed, Ninth Circuit Concludes - Why it matters: In a fascinating – albeit unpublished – decision from the Ninth...more

Insurance Recovery Law - Feb 18, 2014

Insurer Must Indemnify TCPA Settlement, Despite Lack of Involvement - Why it matters: In a closely watched case out of Illinois, an appellate court held that a $1.7 million settlement in a Telephone Consumer...more

24 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