Multiple Claims from Same Product Defect Constitute Multiple Occurences for Purpose of Excess Trigger

Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company

(W.D.N.Y December 28. 2009)

Bausch & Lomb brought an action against defendant Lexington Insurance Company seeking a declaration that Lexington was obligated to provide insurance coverage to Bausch & Lomb with respect to claims made against it by consumers for alleged injuries arising out of the use of Bausch & Lomb contact lens solutions. Bausch & Lomb claimed that it purchased umbrella liability insurance policies from Lexington for yearly periods from January 1, 2004 through January 1,

Continue Reading

DRI Life, Health & Disability Seminar April 28-30, 2010 (Chicago)

DRI’s Life Health, Disability and ERISA Claims Seminar returns to Chicago and promises to bring with it practical guidance for claims and legal professionals. This seminar provides unparalleled presentations by distinguished inside and outside counsel, as well as judiciary and medical experts. The expert faculty will focus on practical pointers, checklists and best practices that can be utilized daily. The 2010 seminar offers more continuing legal education than ever before. The first day of this program includes three parallel tracks of focused programming (Life, Health …

Continue Reading

“Aggregate” Limits of Multi-Year Commercial Excess Policies do not Apply on an Annual Basis

Union Carbide Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.

(NY App. December 15, 2009)

A commercial policyholder sought a declaration that the stated aggregate limits of liability for multi-year excess policies apply on an annual basis. Each of the excess policies contained a declaration that specified a dollar amount as the "limit of liability" and states that the limit applies to each occurrence and "in the aggregate." The policyholder contended that, because the excess policies are silent as to whether the limit of liability is annualized, …

Continue Reading

Cases for December 23, 2009 CaseWatch: Insurance

Cases provided with the permission of Lexis.

Download Align Technology, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. 

Download Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Omni Indemn. Co.

Download Busey Truck Equip., Inc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. 

Download Century National Ins. Co. v. Garcia 

Download Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky 

Download Dumas v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co. 

Download Estate of Tinervin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. 

Download Gillund v. Meridian Mutual Ins. Co. 

Download Hastings Mut. Ins. Co.

Continue Reading

Direct Action Allowed to Proceed Against Reinsurer

Felman Production, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers

(S.D. W. Va. October 19, 2009)

 

After a power failure at plaintiff’s metals plant resulted in physical damage and business interruption loss, plaintiff sued its direct insurers and their reinsurer, Swiss Reinsurance.  Swiss Reinsurance moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint arguing that no claim could be asserted against it because an insured party cannot maintain a direct action against a reinsurer. 

 

The court noted that there are two exceptions to this rule.  A reinsurer may

Continue Reading

District Court Grants Respondents’ Motion Compelling Arbitration Of Parties’ Rights Under Reinsurance Contracts, Staying Pending Litigation Affirming A Prior Award

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. et. al.

(United States District Court, Southern District California, December 9, 2009)

 

This action arises from a dispute between the parties over their obligations under two reinsurance contracts.  The petitioner, Sun Life, seeks the confirmation of a prior arbitration award, whereas respondents contend that in seeking confirmation of the award Sun Life also seeks substantive rulings regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties that the arbitration panel did not address. 

Continue Reading

New York Appellate Division, First Department, Reversed Trial Court Finding that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint For Consequential Damages Against Insurer Was Duplicative

Panasia Estates v. Hudson Insurance Co. (New York Appellate Division, First Department, December 15, 2009)

In an insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff commenced this action against  Hudson Insurance Co. alleging that it breached the insurance contract by failing to properly investigate the loss and denying the loss as not covered under the policy.  In a historic decision, the Court of Appeals, in 2008, allowed plaintiff to proceed forward with asserting a claim for consequential damages despite a contractual exclusion contained in the insurance policy prohibiting such relief.

Continue Reading

Texas Supreme Court: Indemnity Duty May Exist Even If Defense Duty Does Not

D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int’l Ins. Co.

(Tex. Dec. 11, 2009)

 

The Texas Supreme Court recently reversed an appellate decision declaring that Markel International Insurance Company was not obligated to indemnify a putative additional insured in underlying construction litigation. The Texas Supreme Court held that Markel may have a duty to indemnify a general contractor for whom Markel’s named insured did work, even though it has no duty to defend that general contractor.

 

Owners of a newly-constructed house sued the general contractor,

Continue Reading