CGS Indus., Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.
|(2nd Cir. (N.Y.) June 11, 2013
The Second Circuit recently held that the phrase “infringement of title” in a liability policy does not encompass trademark infringement. Thus, the court found that a liability insurer was not obligated to indemnify its insured (not Calvin Klein) against a claim for allegedly copying the claimant’s rear-pocket stitching design in its jeans. The decision is noteworthy because it puts to rest policyholders’ argument, at least in New York, that …
Author: Jeffrey L. Kingsley
Supreme Court Affirms Arbitration Ruling Under Limited Review Authorized Under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act
Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter
(United States Supreme Court, June 10, 2013)
This action arises from an arbitrator’s decision on whether a contract authorizes class arbitration and whether the arbitrator’s decision survives the judicial review allowed by §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Specifically, a physician entered into a contract with the insurer and agreed to provide medical care to members of the insurer’s network. The physician, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, sued the insurer, alleging that the insurer had failed …
Continue ReadingInsurers’ Goal Line Stand: California Coverage Action Stayed While New York Case Marches On
National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.
(Cal. App. Ct. May 28, 2013)
A California appellate court recently affirmed a stay of California litigation commenced by the NFL against multiple insurers seeking coverage for traumatic brain injury cases. The court held that the NFL was not a California resident for purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis even though it has three teams in California.
The NFL administration and its intellectual property marketing arm were sued in multiple states by dozens of former players …
Continue ReadingCourt Finds that Ownership is indeed 9/10th of the Law in Rescission Case
PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. P. Bowie 2008 Irrevocable Trust
(1st Cir. (R.I.) May 13, 2013)
The First Circuit recently held that an insurer may retain life insurance premiums following a policy rescission to offset the loss it has suffered. The ruling is notable because courts typically require an insurer to refund an insured’s policy premium where a rescission is effected.
In PHL, an insurance broker submitted an application for life insurance for Peter Bowie. Bowie’s application represented that he was a self-employed …
Continue ReadingNew York First Department’s Message to Insureds: An Equitable Defense Concerning A Policy Exclusion Cannot Be Decided By Motion Practice
206-208 Main St. Assocs. d/b/a/ Sutphin Blvd., LLC v. Arch Ins. Co.
(N.Y. App. Ct., 1st Dept. May 2, 2013)
A New York appellate court recently held that the issue of whether an insurer was equitably estopped from raising an earth movement exclusion as a defense to coverage two years after it had assumed the purported additional insured’s defense was an issue for the trier of fact.
The plaintiff, 206-208 Main Street Associates, Inc. d/b/a 8930 Sutphin Blvd., LLC hired defendant H & H …
Continue ReadingReconsideration Granted in Part in Reinsurance Dispute
Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co.
(D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2013)
On March 28, 2013, USDC Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted summary judgment in part on a motion for reconsideration of an earlier decision, but noted that with respect to certain retrocessional reinsurance claims there remain genuine issues of material fact. In the case, Munich Reinsurance America Inc. (Munich Re) reinsured the workers’ compensation insurance program of Everest National Insurance Co. (Everest) under an excess-of-loss reinsurance agreement. Munich Re then retrocessionally reinsured the …
Continue ReadingFirm Left Without Malpractice Insurance For Botched Sales Contract
Koransky, Bouwer & Proacky, P.C. v. The Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co.
(7th Cir. (Ind.) Apr. 2, 2013)
The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a ruling that left a law firm without insurance coverage for a malpractice claim arising from a sales transaction gone awry. The court held that the firm’s failure to disclose the potential lawsuit to its malpractice insurer precluded coverage.
The plaintiff law firm represented a potential buyer in the purchase of four Rite Aid drugstores in Ohio. Three of the four …
Continue ReadingA Rose by Any Other Name: New Federal Reserve Rule Defines “Financial Activity”
What’s in a name? What one is designated as or called in the regulatory world is important. It can literally define which regulatory regime one falls under. In the case of nonbank “financial institutions,” it can mean the difference between being considered for a “list” with additional rules and not. As this particular industry waits for the first list of nonbank systemically important financial institutions (SIFI), the Federal Reserve sought to clarify what constitutes “financial activity.”
On April 3, 2013, the Federal Reserve issued rule …
Continue ReadingNo Prejudice, No Problem: Reinsurer Not Required to Show Prejudice in Late Notice Dispute
AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013)
On March 25, Judge Sidney H. Stein, of the USDC for the Southern District of New York, agreed with a magistrate report and recommendation and granted summary judgment to a reinsurer, ruling that the reinsurer did not have to show prejudice when denying coverage because of an insurer’s late notice of a claim. Foster Wheeler, a company that used asbestos in its products, was insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. AIU Insurance Co. issued …
Continue ReadingIllinois Court Protects Insurers from Unripe Coverage Disputes
Byer Clinic & Chiropractic, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
(Illinois Appellate Court Mar. 12, 2013)
An Illinois Appellate Court recently held that an insurer’s defense obligation is not ripe for adjudication if that insurer is defending its insured in an underlying court action, even if subject to a reservation of rights.
The plaintiff filed a class-action complaint against the insured, Kapraun, P.C., and Dr. Michael Kapraun, alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed …
Continue Reading