In Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau, 979 N.W.2d 627 (Wis. App. 2022), the Wisconsin Court held an occurrence-based policy’s anti-assignment clause was ineffective to preclude assignment of policy benefits for losses...
Firm News
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE EXCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO RAPE
In Westchester General Hospital, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 48 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022), applying Florida law, the Court found that a professional services exclusion contained within a hospital general liability policy was not applicable to a claim arising out of...
NEW YORK REJECTS TRANSFERRED INTENT DOCTRINE
In Vermont Mutual Insurance Group v. LePore, 211 Ad.3d 1217, 179 NYS 3d 479 (NYAD 2022), the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court rejected the transferred intent doctrine in a homeowner policy/intentional acts case. In the LePore case, the daughter of the...
COURT FINDS THAT EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS CAN BE MADE IN AN “ALL SUMS” APPROACH TO ALLOCATING COVERAGE AMONG MULTIPLE POLICIES
In Chemical Solvents, Inv. v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 2023 WL 179772 (6th Cir. 1/13/22), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that when an insurance company had been targeted by a policyholder for indemnification in a “all sums” allocation jurisdiction, the...
NORTH CAROLINA REJECTS “ALL SUMS” ALLOCATION
In Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., 881 S.E.2d 597 (N.C. 2022) the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted an exposure trigger, pro rata allocation and vertical exhaustion, in deciding a claim for benzene coverage dispute involving benzene. The insured,...
CHOICE OF LAW
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Stillwater Mining Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 289 A.3d 1274 (Del. 2023) that Delaware law, and not Montana law, governed the question of whether the insurer had a duty to defend a company that was...
INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND POLICE OFFICER EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM BASED ON MERE ASSERTION OF SELF DEFENSE
In Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co. v. Frank, 687 F.Supp.3d 1033, (D. Mont., 2023), the Federal Court held, applying Montana law, that a homeowner and umbrella insurer was required to defend its insured, a police officer, when the police officer was sued...
ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSIONS UPHELD IN OREGON
In Final Table, LLC v. Acceptance Casualty Ins. Co., 537 P.3d 990 (Or. App. 2023) the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment enforcing the application of an assault and battery exclusion in a bar shooting case. In this case, a bar patron named Sheets entered...
REJECTING A CLAIM FOR DEFENSE COSTS
A U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii recently denied an insurer’s request for reimbursement of defense costs when the insurer defended its insured under a reservation of rights and then prevailed on coverage. The District Court in St. Paul Fire &...
AUTOMOBILE CRIMINAL CONDUCT EXCLUSION UPHELD
In Harris v. Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana, 373 S.3d 124 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2023), the Louisiana appellate court upheld a criminal conduct exclusion in an automobile policy precluding coverage for a passenger’s injuries that were incurred when the driver ran a...