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
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
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