Latest Publications

Share:

No Such Thing as “Institutional Bad Faith,” Pennsylvania Superior Court Concludes

“[T]here is no separate cause of action of institutional bad faith,” the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded, referencing Pennsylvania’s bad-faith statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8731, in an action by two homeowners against...more

The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter - 2019 Year in Review

Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five decisions from the last year that you should know about—and five pending cases to watch. As our picks for “Cases to Know” indicate, 2019 was not a...more

Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds Insurer Can’t Use Insured’s Admission to Withdraw Defense

It has long been the rule, under Pennsylvania law, that an insurer's duty to defend is determined "solely" by the allegations in the "four corners" of the complaint against the insured. Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S.,...more

Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies What Is and Is Not an “Occurrence” in the Construction Defect Context

On December 31, 2019, the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its decision in Owners Insurance Company v. Precision Painting & Decorating Corporation, clarifying what does and does not constitute “property damage”...more

PTSD May Be Covered As “Bodily Injury” If It Resulted From Physical Injuries, Pennsylvania Appeals Court Holds

It has long been the rule in Pennsylvania that a mental or psychological injury generally does not constitute “bodily injury,” as defined in most standard insurance policies, unless that mental or psychological injury results...more

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or common law. In New York...more

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law...

On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public...more

Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held...more

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to...more

PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building...

The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a...more

Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an...more

“Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

On May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim,...more

Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on...

Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v....more

Two Recent Cases Highlight the Importance of Complying With New York’s Coverage Disclaimer Rules

As two recent cases demonstrate, a coverage disclaimer in New York is only as good as its compliance with that state’s various rules for perfecting a disclaimer in connection with a bodily injury claim. Under New York...more

Insureds Suing Individual Adjusters – What Will Change If The Washington Supreme Court Decides That Adjusters May Be Sued For Bad...

In Keodalah v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Washington Supreme Court is set to determine whether individual insurance adjusters (as distinguished from the insurers for which they work) may be sued for bad faith and...more

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may...more

41 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide