| |
 | |
|
News: Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
|
|
|
|
Second Circuit Rules “Insured Versus Insured” Exclusion is Ambiguous Under Virginia Law
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:33 Eastern
Recently, in Macey v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-6067-cv, 2010 WL 2595299 (June 30, 2010), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “insured versus insured” exclusion contained in a D&O policy was ambiguous. As a result
| Insurance Coverage for Nanotechnology Risks Could Be a Big Deal
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:29 Eastern
Nanotechnology, the science and business of manufacturing on a very small scale, is continuing to grow despite global economic downturns. In fact, some estimate that over 20,000 companies and institutions from 48 countries are involved in some aspec
| BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Give Notice to Your Carrier Even if You Have no Claims
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:13 Eastern
The scope of damages and potential covered claims from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill reaches much further than the gulf area. Companies around the world have been affected by the spill; many may not even know it yet, but their claims losses and
| “Waiving” Goodbye to Insurance Company Subrogation Rights
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:29 Eastern
Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Although the law across the country continues to be mixed, the rule in some states is that, if an insurance company does not timely raise an issue or defense, such as stating all grounds upon
| Double Anchors Away: California Appellate Court Rejects Insurer’s Attempt To Apply “Double Trigger” For Coverage
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:17 Eastern
Ever since the seminal California Supreme Court decision in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 Cal. 4th 645 (1995), insurers have sought ways to avoid or discredit its “progressive damage-continuous trigger.” In its Jun
| Southern District of Indiana Denies Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Holding Plaintiffs’ Claims against Polluting Corporation Are Not Precluded by Indiana’s Statute of Limitation or Res Judicata
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:17 Eastern
In the Southern District of Indiana case, Bernstein v. Bankert, No. 1:08-cv-0427, 2010 US Dist. LEXIS 24329 (Mar. 16, 2010), the Court declined to grant summary judgment to Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”), when Auto-Owners argued
| Self-Insured Retention and the Multi-Home Construction Defect Action: Is Each House a Separate Claim?
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:58 Eastern
In Clarendon America Ins. Co. v. North American Capacity Ins. Co., Case No. E048176 (Fourth Appellate District, Div. Two, July 7, 2010), the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant insurer North American
| Georgia Supreme Court Finds Insurer’s Failure to Issue A Reservation of Rights Waives Ability To Contest Coverage Even If The Claim Is Actually Not Covered
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:06 Eastern
In World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., S10Q341 (Ga. May 3, 2010), the Georgia Supreme Court held that an insurer waives its right to deny defense or indemnity obligations if it fails to timely reserve rights and that the policyholde
| California Appellate Court Confirms Broad Defense Obligation
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:32 Eastern
Commercial umbrella policies typically provide two types of liability coverage. Like excess policies, umbrella policies provide additional coverage in the event that the limits of the underlying primary policy are exhausted. What makes such policie
| Mother And Son Entitled To Separate Insurance Coverage
Insurance Coverage Monitor Newsfeed
Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:07 Eastern
In dealing a blow to the insurance industry, the California Supreme Court, in Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co., recently held that the existence of a “separate insurance” clause in a homeowners’ policy precluded the insurer from asserting
|
|
|
|
