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
Tag: duty to defend
Washington Supreme Court Applies the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to Third Party Liability Policy to Find a Duty to Defend
Sally S. Kim | Gordon & Rees LLP | May 11, 2017 The efficient proximate cause rule is one of the more confusing analyses that an insurance company must undertake when investigating certain coverage issues under first party insurance policies. And until now, the efficient proximate cause rule has only been applied to first party… Continue reading Washington Supreme Court Applies the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to Third Party Liability Policy to Find a Duty to Defend
Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
Theresa Guertin | Saxe Doernberger & Vita, PC | January 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development… Continue reading Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage
Masaki J. Yamada | Ahlers & Cressman PLLC | December 22, 2016 Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of… Continue reading Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage
Oregon Supreme Court Reaffirms Broad Nature of the Duty to Defend, even in the Face of Ambiguous or Unclear Allegations
Kevin Mapes | The Policyholder Report | December 14, 2016 Back in August 2015, I wrote this post about the Oregon Court of Appeals opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., where the court confirmed that Oregon’s broad duty to defend extended to parties claiming rights as “additional insureds.” Last week, the… Continue reading Oregon Supreme Court Reaffirms Broad Nature of the Duty to Defend, even in the Face of Ambiguous or Unclear Allegations