Application Sinks Insured’s Claims Against Agent Over Hole-In-One Coverage

Key Takeaways:

  • Extends the “duty to read” principle typically applied to insurance policies to applications submitted by insureds for such policies
  • Reasonable expectations doctrine only applies when the terms of the policy itself are ambiguous

After losing an extended coverage battle with its insurer that ultimately resulted in a finding of no coverage by the Fourth Circuit, the insured in Old White Charities, Inc. v. Bankers Ins., LLC, No. 18-1914, 2020 WL 290664 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020) took aim at its insurance agent, asserting claims of …

Continue Reading

Insurers May Need a Doctor’s Note: Data Breach of Medical Records Triggers Coverage, Says Fourth Circuit

On Monday, April 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit handed down a notable, albeit unpublished, decision with regard to an issue that has vexed the insurance industry, namely, do data breaches trigger a CGL insurer’s duty to defend under Coverage B? In Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, L.L.C., the Fourth Circuit determined, under Virginia law, the underlying class action lawsuit, indeed, triggered Travelers’ duty to defend.

The underlying lawsuit was a class action complaint filed against, in pertinent part, Portal Healthcare …

Continue Reading

Maryland Joins the Rising Tide of States in Placing Limits on the Scope of Additional Insured Coverage

Maryland, home of the Chesapeake Bay, brings to mind the aphorism, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Maryland has joined the rising tide of states that have adopted a proximate cause standard to determine when an additional insured is entitled to coverage for injuries “caused, in whole or in part, by” another’s acts or omissions. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ October 28, 2015 decision in James G. Davis Construction Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, marks …

Continue Reading

Under Virginia Law, Despite the Separation of Insureds Provision, Insurer has No Duty to Defend Suit Alleging Insured is Liable Under Respondeat Superior for Intentional Acts of Agent

On July 10, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an insurer had no duty to defend the insured university in a suit alleging that the insured participated in a kidnapping plot. The court found that the insurer had no duty to defend because the suit was based on the intentional acts of the insured’s employees.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the insured participated in a plot to kidnap the student in order to remove the student and keep her separated …

Continue Reading