Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Insurance Implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act
Applying Illinois law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has held that a D&O policy’s professional services and contract exclusions do not bar coverage for lawsuits seeking damages for fees and...more
For decades, California courts have mandated that an insurer is obligated to accept a “reasonable” settlement demand within policy limits on behalf of its insured. If it fails to do so, it is liable for the entire judgment,...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
A California Court of Appeal held in Transport Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (R.R. Street & Co.) that a named insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage can be different from those of an additional insured’s. This ruling leaves...more
On July 3, 2013, a closely divided Florida Supreme Court held that judges were required to interpret ambiguous policy language strictly against the insurer and in favor of coverage, and that courts should not first attempt to...more