Larry P. Schiffer | Squire Patton Boggs It is fundamental that a policyholder has to notify its insurance company about a claim if it expects the insurer to defend and indemnify the policyholder against that claim. When and where that notice has to be given, however, varies. Sometimes the notice requirement is expressed as a… Continue reading “Please” Is Not a Material Condition of an Insurance Policy’s Notice of Claim Provision
Category: Insurance Coverage
Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty
Ben Volpe | Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell EIFS, or Exterior Insulation and Finish System, is an integrated exterior insulation and synthetic stucco system, praised for its energy efficiency.[1] However, EIFS has come to be well known in the construction defect world as placing homes at risk due to a lack of a built-in moisture management system.… Continue reading Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty
A Catch 22: The Interplay Between Bad Faith And Removal
Shayla Bivins | Drew Eckl & Farnham Federal diversity jurisdiction is established where 1) the opposing parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states and 2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.1 To successfully remove a state court action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, defendants must prove by a preponderance of the… Continue reading A Catch 22: The Interplay Between Bad Faith And Removal
What a Difference a Word Makes: “Any Insured” Cross Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit Against Additional Insured
Scott Seaman and Judith Selby | Hinshaw & Culbertson Based on the policy’s use of the term “any insured” instead of “the insured” in a cross liability exclusion, a Massachusetts appeals court recently ruled that an additional insured contractor was not entitled to coverage under its subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy for a negligence claim… Continue reading What a Difference a Word Makes: “Any Insured” Cross Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit Against Additional Insured
Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown & Bonesteel In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply… Continue reading Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims