In Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., 2015 WL 1773620 (Ga. Apr. 20, 2015), XL had provided Piedmont an excess policy with limits of $10 million excess of $10 million. The policy provided that XL will only pay for a “loss” that the policyholder became “legally obligated to pay.” The policy required the insurer’s consent to settle a claim, although it stated that the insurer would not unreasonably withhold consent. Further, the policy contained a provision prohibiting actions against XL …Continue Reading
In EMJ Corp. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29781, 14-15, N.D. Miss. Mar. 11, 2015) the plaintiffs, EMJ Corporation and Westchester Fire Insurance Company, brought this declaratory judgment action against Defendant Hudson Specialty Insurance Company. They were seeking a declaration that Westchester was entitled to contribution from Hudson Specialty for the amount Westchester paid on behalf of EMJ in a settlement of an underlying personal injury action.
In partially granting the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying …Continue Reading
On Friday, August 29, 2014, the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order finding that an excess insurance policy was triggered though the underlying policies had not exhausted their full coverage limit.
Plantation Pipe Line Co. operates pipelines transporting petroleum throughout the southern and eastern United States. In 1990, a leak was found in North Carolina, and Plantation was required to remediate the site. Plantation spent almost $12 million to clean and restore the area. Plantation sought defense and …Continue Reading