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?
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that a retroactive date endorsement limited coverage to $1 million if a claim involved wrongful acts occurring prior...more
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that a professional liability insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a lawsuit involving the...more
A federal district court, applying California law, has determined that an insurer owed a duty to defend because the policy’s retroactive date exclusion was ambiguous in that it could reasonably be interpreted to apply only to...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 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that a reinsurer does not need to reimburse its insured for defense and settlement costs paid in connection with an underlying...more
Applying Illinois law, a federal district court has held that an insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify for a lawsuit that was filed and dismissed prior to the policy period and later refiled during the policy...more
Despite the existence of cybersecurity insurance, companies still seek coverage for cyber liability under various types of other insurance. Carriers, in turn, rely upon broad exclusions to limit coverage for risks never...more
County of Suffolk v. Lexington Ins. Co., Case Number 604661-2017, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County - Under New York law, the requirement of a fortuitous loss is a necessary element for coverage to...more