An insurer’s duty to defend generally is based on a comparison of the complaint against the insured and the insurance policy language. However, in some jurisdictions, an insurer may consider "extrinsic" evidence — information...more
The proper trigger of coverage in construction defect disputes has been addressed on several occasions by New Jersey courts. Most notably, in Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, 452 N.J....more
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five decisions from the last year that you should know about—and five pending cases to watch.
As our picks for “Cases to Know” indicate, 2019 was not a...more
1/29/2020
/ Asbestos Litigation ,
Auto Insurance ,
Bad Faith ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Choice-of-Law ,
CT Supreme Court ,
Denial of Insurance Coverage ,
FL Supreme Court ,
GA Supreme Court ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Liability Insurance ,
Malpractice Insurance ,
Negligence ,
Notice Prejudice Rule ,
NV Supreme Court ,
Occupational Exposure ,
OH Supreme Court ,
Policy Exclusions ,
Policy Terms ,
SD Supreme Court ,
Standing ,
Subrogation ,
WA Supreme Court
It has long been the rule, under Pennsylvania law, that an insurer's duty to defend is determined "solely" by the allegations in the "four corners" of the complaint against the insured. Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S.,...more
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public...more
9/3/2019
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Choice-of-Law ,
Consent ,
Contamination ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Late Notices ,
Notice Prejudice Rule ,
Policy Terms ,
Public Policy ,
Remediation ,
Third-Party Liability