Craig Rokuson | Traub Lieberman In the recent case of Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 20-CV-4614 (LJL), 2021 WL 3617218 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—in deciding a motion for consideration—had occasion to review the 2013 ISO changes to the additional insured… Continue reading Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement
Category: Insurance
Montana Federal Court Holds that Notice-Prejudice Rule Does Not Apply to Claims-Made Policy
Mary Weaver | Wiley Rein A Montana federal court has held that the notice-prejudice rule is inapplicable to claims-made policies as a matter of Montana law. Hanover Ins. Grp. v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3769324 (D. Mont. Aug. 23, 2021). The court held that no coverage was available under either of two claims-made policies… Continue reading Montana Federal Court Holds that Notice-Prejudice Rule Does Not Apply to Claims-Made Policy
Insured Versus Insured Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Claims Brought by Member of Insured LLC
Katelyn Cramp | Wiley Rein Applying Washington law, a federal district court has held that an insured versus insured exclusion does not bar coverage for claims asserted by a member of an insured limited liability company. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Point Ruston LLC, 2021 WL 3630511 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2021). The court also… Continue reading Insured Versus Insured Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Claims Brought by Member of Insured LLC
Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii The court found the insured was not covered for losses caused by Hurricane Laura due to the implementation of the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lejeune, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106804 (W. D. La. June 7, 2021). At the time of the… Continue reading Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane
Rather Than Limit Decision to “That Particular Part” of Developer’s Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)
William S. Bennett | SDV Insights The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Colorado law, recently extended Colorado’s broad application of the phrase “arising out of” in insurance interpretation, barring an insured real estate developer from receiving a defense to a suit alleging liability for construction of a defective retaining wall and associated resulting damage.1 … Continue reading Rather Than Limit Decision to “That Particular Part” of Developer’s Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)