Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP | July 5, 2017 In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered… Continue reading Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse
Category: Insurance Coverage
Cracks Caused by Construction Operations May Be Covered
Chip Merlin | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | July 14, 2017 Judges often make erroneous decisions based on the information presented and argued to them by the attorneys selected by the parties. I was thinking about this while writing my post, Experts Regarding Causation Can Be More Important Than Witnesses — or, Don’t Believe Your… Continue reading Cracks Caused by Construction Operations May Be Covered
Poisoning the Well: Washington Supreme Court Applies Efficient Proximate Cause to Eviscerate Pollution Exclusion in Liability Policy
Meredith Whigham Caiafa | PropertyCasualtyFocus | July 7, 2017 Professionals and practitioners in first party property insurance are likely familiar with the efficient proximate cause rule, which requires an insurance policy to provide coverage where “a covered peril sets in motion a causal chain,” even if subsequent causes-in-fact of the loss are excluded by the… Continue reading Poisoning the Well: Washington Supreme Court Applies Efficient Proximate Cause to Eviscerate Pollution Exclusion in Liability Policy
Giant Concrete Coverage Suit Tests Conn. Bad Faith Laws
Ryan Boysen | Law 360 | July 3, 2017 National insurance giants including State Farm, AIG, Allstate and a slew of others are staring down the barrel of an unconventional proposed class action in Connecticut that could cost them billions of dollars and will test the limits of the state’s insurance industry bad faith laws — all because of… Continue reading Giant Concrete Coverage Suit Tests Conn. Bad Faith Laws
District Court Rules “Professional Services” Exclusion means Professional Services
R. Bruce Wallace | Nexsen | Pruet | June 29, 2017 Recently, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted judgment in favor of an insurance carrier, finding the carrier did not owe a duty of defense or a duty to indemnify the insured in an underlying professional malpractice claim. In State… Continue reading District Court Rules “Professional Services” Exclusion means Professional Services