Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed… Continue reading No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law
Category: Duty to Defend
A Potential Big Win for Real Estate Developers in Illinois: CGL Coverage for Property Damage from Defective Work
Michael Roth and Lauren Stewart | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Listen to this post Illinois may have just opened a new door for developers and owners for insurance coverage when it comes to defective construction work and commercial general liability (“CGL”) coverage. Based on the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Acuity v. M/I Homes… Continue reading A Potential Big Win for Real Estate Developers in Illinois: CGL Coverage for Property Damage from Defective Work
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