This article will discuss policyholder concerns after a California federal court recently found that some PFAS claims in an MDL were excluded under a pollution exclusion, but others were not. The case is Nat'l Foam, Inc. v....more
In my last blog, I discussed the seminal ruling in Chisholm’s-Village Plaza, LLC v. Travelers Insurance Co., et al.; No. 2:20-cv-00920-JB-KRS, in which the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico analyzed...more
JP Energy Marketing, LLC v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company, et al., No. 115285, 2018 Okla. LEXIS 11 (Okla. Feb. 5, 2018) - Oklahoma Supreme Court in a case of first impression authorizes an award of appeal-related...more
Professionals and practitioners in first party property insurance are likely familiar with the efficient proximate cause rule, which requires an insurance policy to provide coverage where “a covered peril sets in motion a...more
Slapping insurers with breach of contract and bad faith, Washington state’s highest court recently found that a general liability policy’s so-called “absolute” pollution exclusion may not be so absolute. In Xia et al. v....more