In This Issue:
- Southern District Of California: Excess Insurer Liable For Bad Faith For Two Month Delay In Responding To Insured’s Demand To Either Pay Negotiated Settlement Or To Take Over Insured’s Defense........... pages 1 - 2
- Western District of Oklahoma: Bad Faith Claim Cannot be Brought Against Holding Company with No Ties to State, Unless It Has Pervasive Control Over Subsidiary’s Actions as an Insurer page 3 Middle District of Pennsylvania: Allegations Sufficient to Maintain Bad Faith Claim Against Holding Company......... pages 3 - 4
- Nevada Court Holds That Insurers Must Produce Claims, Investigation And Underwriting Files In Response To Discovery Requests Despite Limited Relevance To Breach Of Contract Claim............. pages 4 - 5
- Excerpt from "Southern District Of California":
Beginning in 2007, LMA North America, Inc. (“LMA”) and its competitor, Ambu A/S (“Ambu”), engaged in contentious litigation in which LMA initiated a lawsuit alleging patent infringement and Ambu asserted counterclaims against LMA for alleged false and disparaging advertising, with alleged damages of up to $30 million. Ambu’s counterclaims were covered claims under LMA’s primary and excess insurance polices with CNA (primary) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (“National Union”). CNA’s primary policy had limits of $1 million and National Union’s policy had excess limits of $14 million.
Please see full newsletter for more information.