In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Kaufman & Broad Monterey Bay, Inc., 2015 WL 581528 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015), Travelers had issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Norcraft. The defendants were named as additional insureds on the policies. The defendants were sued for claims arising out of a residential development project. The defendants tendered their defense of the claims to Travelers, which accepted the tender and appointed counsel for the defendants. Travelers and the defendants asserted claims against each other …
Continue ReadingCategory: Uncategorized
Structural Damage Doesn’t Mean Any Damage to Structure
In Hegel v. First Liberty Insurance Corp., No. 14-10549, 2015 WL 821146 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the policyholder, finding that “structural damage” does not mean any “damage to the structure.”
The coverage dispute arose when the insurer First Liberty Insurance Corp. (“First Liberty”) denied the policyholders’ claim for a “sinkhole loss” which their homeowner’s insurance policy defined as “structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole …
Continue ReadingTexas Federal Court Bars Coverage Attorney’s Expert Testimony
In Corinth Investor Holdings, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172647 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2014), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the “expert” report of Michael W. Huddleston, an expert witness designated by the defendant insurer. Homeland Insurance Company (“HIC”) had designated Huddleston, an attorney with experience in insurance law, as an expert witness. Notably, HIC’s main coverage defenses were based on the policy’s “claims made” requirement and prior …
Continue Reading11th Circuit Refuses to Enforce Knowing Violation of Rights of Another Exclusion in FACTA Lawsuit
In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Kansas City Landsmen, L.L.C., No. 14-11006, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 453 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“insurers”). The Eleventh Circuit determined that the insurers may have a duty to defend The Kansas City Landsmen, LLC and A Betterway Rent-a-Car, Inc. (“Car Rental Companies”).
The underlying disputes arose from …
Continue ReadingHow Is a Dress Trade Dress? California Federal District Court Deems Clothing Design Infringement Suit as Alleging Trade Dress Infringement
In West Trend, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., No. CV 14-06872-RGK (PLAx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6807 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015), the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of West Trend, Inc. (“West Trend”) against AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”), finding that AMCO had a duty to defend West Trend against a lawsuit filed by Spirit Clothing Company (“Spirit”).
The underlying lawsuit involved a long sleeve shirt marketed and sold by West Trend that contained stitching allegedly similar to Spirit’s own recognizable …
Continue ReadingN.Y. Court of Appeals Upholds Carriers Interpretation of Ensuing Loss Exception to Water Exclusion
In Platek v Town of Hamberg (N.Y. Ct. Apps., Feb. 19, 2015), New York’s highest court reversed the decision of the Fourth Department appeals court siding with the carrier’s interpretation of the water exclusion contained within a homeowner’s all risk policy. The relevant policy language provided as follows:
“ [The policy] does not cover loss to the property . . . consisting of or caused by:
. . .
- Water . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source
Schism Between Groups of Asbestos Claimants Following $358 Million Garlock Settlement
In a $358 million dollar agreement, which has drawn nationwide attention from insurers and other companies with asbestos liabilities, Garlock Sealing Technologies has agreed to settle all asbestos claims against the company. This agreement was made possible largely because of evidence that lawyers fraudulently inflated judgments and settlements. This development may aid other insurers and companies with asbestos liabilities to dispute similar claims brought by asbestos lawyers.
Garlock Sealing Technologies is a wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Industries, Inc., which manufactured and developed asbestos-lined gaskets. …
Continue ReadingSchism Between Groups of Asbestos Claimants Following $358 Million Garlock Settlement
In a $358 million agreement, which has drawn nationwide attention from insurers and other companies with asbestos liabilities, Garlock Sealing Technologies has agreed to settle all asbestos claims against the company. This agreement was made possible largely because of evidence that lawyers fraudulently inflated judgments and settlements. This development may aid other insurers and companies with asbestos liabilities to dispute similar claims brought by asbestos lawyers.
Garlock Sealing Technologies is a wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Industries, Inc., which manufactured and developed asbestos-lined gaskets. According …
Continue ReadingLaw Firm’s Policy Rescinded For Misrepresentation in Application
The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the insurer was entitled to rescind a law firm’s malpractice policy based on material misrepresentations in the firm’s renewal application. The main issue in this case was whether the policy could be rescinded despite one of the firm’s attorneys being unaware of the misrepresentation.
The appellate court had ruled that, under the innocent insured doctrine, the insurer was required to maintain coverage for the innocent partner despite the misrepresentation on the application when renewing the policy. This court …
Continue ReadingSouth Carolina Supreme Court: Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose Bars Claims for Equitable Indemnity
In Columbia/CSA-HS Greater Columbia Healthcare Sys., LP v. S. Carolina Med. Malpractice Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 2015 WL 249536 (S.C. Jan. 21, 2015), the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed two lower courts’ constructions of the medical malpractice statute of repose and barred a hospital from seeking indemnification from an ER doctor who misdiagnosed a patient, despite a strong dissent by two justices, including Chief Justice Toal.
In May of 1997, patient Arthur Sharpe sought medical treatment in Providence Hospital’s emergency room for chest …
Continue Reading