The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a personnel policies exclusion bars coverage for an employee’s negligence action against the insured...more
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that an insured v. insured exclusion in a D&O policy bars coverage for a trustee’s claims against a bankrupt insured...more
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, applying California law, has held that: (i) a D&O policy’s dishonesty exclusion did not bar coverage where the judgment at issue did not include a...more
The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer was entitled to rescind a professional liability policy issued to a healthcare facility because the...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an insured bank did not comply with the notice requirements in its claims-made-and-reported excess policies when...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that an insurer had a duty to defend an insured condominium association and its board members against an underlying...more
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made liability policies where an insured did not merely provide late...more
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, applying Louisiana law, has held that losses reported by customers of an insurance company, for which the customers had no coverage due to the alleged...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an outside entity exclusion precluded a professional liability insurer’s duty to defend a claim against its...more
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made policies. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Great Plains Annual Conference...more
3/3/2022
/ Allocation of Liability ,
Breach of Contract ,
Claims Made Policy ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
D&O Insurance ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Federal Court Litigation ,
KS Supreme Court ,
Misrepresentation ,
Notice Prejudice Rule ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Tolling Agreement ,
Wrongful Acts
The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, applying South Dakota law, has held that an insured healthcare system was barred from settling without its healthcare liability insurer’s consent where the...more
1/5/2022
/ Bad Faith ,
Breach of Duty ,
Consent ,
Cooperation Agreement ,
Duty to Defend ,
Health Insurance ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
No-Action Clauses ,
Reservation of Rights ,
Self-Insured Retention Provisions ,
Settlement Negotiations ,
Unnecessary Medical Procedures
The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that an invasion of privacy exclusion precluded D&O coverage for underlying suits alleging violations of the Illinois...more
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont has held that there is no coverage under a CGL and professional liability policy for all claims in an underlying suit brought against an insured residential care...more
The Montana Supreme Court has held that there was no coverage under a lawyers professional liability policy for a client’s malpractice claim because the lawyer knew of and failed to disclose, prior to the insured law firm’s...more
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware, applying Delaware law, has held that lawsuits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty did not constitute “Securities Claims” under a D&O policy. Calamos Asset Mgt.,...more
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, applying District of Columbia law, has held that there is no coverage for three lawsuits filed against an insured company because the lawsuits related to an email...more
A California federal district court has ruled that an insurer could rescind a professional liability policy because its insured failed to disclose a customer dispute and potential claim in its application for...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion in a D&O policy did not bar coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging a company...more
Judge Paul Wallace of the Delaware Superior Court has held that a bump-up provision did not operate to preclude coverage for a settlement of a Section 14(a) cause of action. Northrop Grumman Innovation Sys., Inc. v. Zurich...more
The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that antitrust exclusions in two D&O policies did not bar coverage for a class action against an insured sports...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that a professional liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an employee of its insured realty management...more
The California Court of Appeal, applying California law, has held that two lawsuits arising from work performed by the same insured engineering firm on a housing development constitute related claims under the firm’s...more
The Missouri Court of Appeals, applying Missouri law, has held that multiple acts of negligence committed by a lawyer while representing a married couple in a lawsuit are related acts or omissions constituting a single claim...more
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, applying Maryland law, has held that the professional services and managed care activity exclusions in a D&O policy did not bar coverage for a lawsuit...more
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, applying Alabama law, has held that an insurer could not invoke a policy’s consent-to-settle requirement to avoid liability because the insurer refused to...more