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”

Insurer Owes Duty To Defend In Toilet Wipe Property Damage Case: Takeaways From Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. V. Dude Products, Inc.

Adam K. Hollander adn Haley A. Hinton | Barnes & Thornburg In Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. v. Dude Products, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered whether a general liability insurer had a duty to defend a putative consumer class action in which there were no specific causes of action for property damage.… Continue reading Insurer Owes Duty To Defend In Toilet Wipe Property Damage Case: Takeaways From Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. V. Dude Products, Inc.

Duty to Defend, Number of Occurrences and Aggregate Limits of Liability – U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California Law)

Tanya M. Murray | Plunkett Cooney San Bernardino County v. The Ins. Co. of The State of PennsylvaniaCase No. 5:21-cv-01978-PSG-JEM (D. Cal. May 16, 2023) The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part, and denied in part, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. At issue between the parties, San… Continue reading Duty to Defend, Number of Occurrences and Aggregate Limits of Liability – U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California Law)

Time Lag Does Not End Insurer’s Duty to Defend, Court Rules

Andrew G. Simpson | Claims Journal A federal court in New York has reiterated that a time lag between the date a trip-and-fall accident occurred and when the conduct alleged to have caused it took place does not itself relieve an insurer of its duty to defend its insured in an injury suit related to… Continue reading Time Lag Does Not End Insurer’s Duty to Defend, Court Rules

CGL Coverage Dispute Regarding the (J)(6) and (J)(7) Property Damage Exclusions

David Adelstein | Florida Construction Legal Updates A new insurance coverage opinion dealing with a commercial general liability’s (CGL) duty to defend involved exclusions commonly known as the (j)(6) and (j)(7) property damage exclusions (and in certain policies known as the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions). These are the exclusions that apply during ongoing operations.  Exclusion (l), or the “your work” exclusion, applies post-completion, i.e., it… Continue reading CGL Coverage Dispute Regarding the (J)(6) and (J)(7) Property Damage Exclusions

%d bloggers like this: