Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii     The magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023).      Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into  an agreement… Continue reading Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

Keith Sparks Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the… Continue reading Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

Oregon Court of Appeals Addresses an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Affirms “Complete Defense” Rule

Matthew H. Mues | Davis Wright Tremaine On September 13, 2023, the Oregon Court of Appeals (“Court”) addressed several arguments made by an insurer, Arrowood Indemnity Company (“Arrowood”), as to why it did not have a duty to defend, or why it should only defend covered claims, in environmental litigation involving the Portland Harbor Superfund… Continue reading Oregon Court of Appeals Addresses an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Affirms “Complete Defense” Rule

Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii     While agreeing with the insured there was a duty to defend, the court determined the defense of an environmental claims was limited to $100,000. Casa Nido Partnership v. JAE Kwon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97701 (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2023).      In 1976, Casa Nido purchased… Continue reading Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

Quiet Title Action Does Not Involve Covered “Loss”

Nathan B. Lovett | Wiley Rein The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has held that a professional liability insurer had no duty to defend its insured in an underlying lawsuit because the suit did not seek “Loss” as defined in the policy. Dollar Point Ass’n, Inc. v. United… Continue reading Quiet Title Action Does Not Involve Covered “Loss”

%d bloggers like this: