The High Court confirmed that under Wisconsin Law there were no exceptions to the rule that extrinsic evidence cannot create a duty to defend.In Water Well Solutions Service Group, Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 369 Wis.2d 607, 881 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 2016), the...
Month: March 2017
NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT REJECTS THE CREATION OF AN UNAVAILABILITY EXCEPTION TO NEW YORK’S RULE REQUIRING UNINSURED PERIODS TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE INSURED IN CONTINUOUS AND PROGRESSIVE LOSS CASES
New York Law requires insurance companies to allocate continuous, progressive losses on a pro rata basis among all triggered policies based upon a time-on-the-risk allocation model. The New York Appellate Court recently rejected an invitation to create an...
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON ALLOCATION MODEL FOR LONG LEGACY DISEASE CLAIMS
In Arceneaux, et al., v. AmStar Corp., et al., 2015-0588 (La. 9/7/16), 200 So.3d 277, 2016 WL 4699163 (La., 9/7/16).The Louisiana Supreme Court allocated the costs of defending long legacy disease claims between the insured and insured based upon a on a time-on-the...
Duty to Defend Decision in the LA Supreme Court
THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT RECENTLY HELD THAT THE DUTY TO DEFEND IN LONG LEGACY DISEASE CASES SHOULD BE PRORATED BETWEEN THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE INSURED IN SITUATIONS WHERE AN OCCURRENCE-BASED POLICY PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR ONLY A PORTION OF THE TIME FOR WHICH...
SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT ADVERTISING INJURY COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT BRANDED GOODS
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the selling of goods with a counterfeit brand label did not constitute covered advertising injury. In U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Fendi Adele S.R.I., 823 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016), the insured,...