A federal district court, applying Washington law, has held that coverage for a claim was barred because an insured failed to provide notice within the claim-made policy’s reporting deadline.
In November 2017, the insured...more
The United States District Court for the District of Utah, applying Utah law, has held that an insured v. insured exclusion barred coverage for the entirety of a “mixed” action brought by both insured and non-insured...more
A federal district court, applying Missouri law, has held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured because the underlying litigation alleged intentional conduct that was barred by an intentional acts...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, held that an insurer owed a duty to defend its insured in an underlying litigation stemming from a payment card breach because it found that the...more
A New York state court held that there was no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in connection with an underlying litigation because the operative complaint did not allege that the insured was acting in its professional...more