Hinshaw Releases Second Edition of Duty to Defend: A Fifty-State Survey
Loading and Unloading Under GL and Auto Policies: 2022
Prior & Pending Litigation
What is a Damron Agreement?
In this episode of "Don’t Take No for an Answer," Lynda A. Bennett and Alexander B. Corson explore the complex issue of "allocation" in the context of defense costs in insurance claims. They discuss what steps to take when...more
The duty of a liability insurer to defend a policyholder from litigation is typically described as broad and expansive, extending beyond the insurer’s duty to indemnify. The duty to defend generally obliges an insurer to...more
In Optrics Inc. v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 [Optrics] the Alberta Court of Appeal highlights the limits on summary applications by insureds seeking confirmation that an insurer must defend a claim against the...more
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has held that an insured v. insured exclusion barred coverage for a lawsuit brought in the name of a music fraternity against its president and executive...more
California courts strictly enforce an insurer’s duty to immediately commence defending its insured. The insurer’s delay in doing so, even if the delay is short, constitutes a breach of this important duty. In fact, California...more
United States District Court Orders Insured To Produce Certain Pre-Litigation Documents But Not Others Deemed Work Product 99 Wall sued Allied World seeking coverage under a property policy for water losses at 99 Wall’s...more
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or common law. In New York...more
In its recent decision in Temple Insurance Company v. Sazwan, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) considered the scope of, and exceptions to, an insurer’s right and duty to defend. This is the first decision in...more
Scope: The “Comparison Test” - The defense obligation arises when a defense is needed: at the outset of the suit. It follows that, unlike the duty to indemnify (which depends on the “true” facts as they are determined in...more
In a win for insurers, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled on June 22, 2017 that a duty to defend does not require insurers to fund an insured’s counterclaim, even if it is “inextricably intertwined” with a...more
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Hamel, 2017 WL 2623067 (Tex. June 16, 2017), the Texas Supreme Court more precisely defined the circumstances under which an insurance company that wrongfully fails to defend an insured may...more
A “Morris Agreement” is a “settlement agreement entered into when the insurer is defending under a reservation of rights under which the insured stipulates to a judgment, assigns his rights against the insurer to the...more
The Nevada Supreme Court has adopted California’s independent counsel rules, holding that an insured is entitled to select its own counsel where an insurer’s coverage reservation creates an actual conflict of interest between...more
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
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
Good News for Corporate Policyholders: Insurer Cannot Refuse Coverage Based on Insured's Assignment of Rights Under Policies After Loss Has Occurred - Why it matters: Reversing its holding in a 2003 case, the Supreme...more
The first line of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion says it all: “This case provides a warning for insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds.” As the court’s admonishment suggests, insurers that improperly refuse to...more
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that...more
In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court on August 20, 2015 in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the court removed a significant obstacle facing companies that want to assign their interests in a...more
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
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and...more
Joining a majority of states that have addressed the issue, the Montana Supreme Court recently held that “an insurer who does not receive timely notice required by the terms of an insurance policy must demonstrate prejudice...more
California Court: Rejected Demand Within Policy Limits Not Necessary for Bad Faith Claim - Why it matters: Insurers must proceed with caution when they become aware that a settlement within policy limits is possible,...more
In New Jersey, if a policyholder is required to sue its insurance company for coverage, Court Rule R.4:42-9 allows a policyholder to recover attorneys’ fees if it is successful in obtaining coverage. The purpose of this...more
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