Steven Plitt, Expert Witness Steven Plitt, Expert Witness
Insurance Bad Faith Claim Handling Expert Serving Clients Nationwide

Posts tagged "duty to defend"

MAINE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON APROTIONING DAMAGES

The Maine Supreme Court in Harlor v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 2016 WL 6518589 (ME November 3, 2016) held that when an insurance company refuses to defend its insured on a mixed complaint containing allegations of both potentially covered and uncovered claims the insurer would be liable only for that portion of the settlement between its insured and the claimants representing payment for covered claims.

MAINE SUPREME COURT WAYS IN ON APROTIONING DAMAGES

The Maine Supreme Court in Harlor v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 2016 WL 6518589 (ME November 3, 2016) held that when an insurance company refuses to defend its insured on a mixed complaint containing allegations of both potentially covered and uncovered claims the insurer would be liable only for that portion of the settlement between its insured and the claimants representing payment for covered claims.

THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, IN A SPLIT DECISION, REAFFIRMED THE "FOUR-CORNERS" RULE GOVERNING A LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY'S DUTY TO DEFEND

The High Court confirmed that under Wisconsin Law there were no exceptions to the rule that extrinsic evidence cannot create a duty to defend.

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 unavailability exception to the allocation rule so that insurers were not required to indemnify the insured for periods when liability insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.

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 THE EXPOSURE OCCURRED.

Four Corners Rule Upheld in WI Supreme Court Case

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a split decision, reaffirmed the "four corners" rule governing a liability insurance company's duty to defend. The High Court confirmed that under Wisconsin law there were no exceptions to the rule that extrinsic evidence cannot create a duty to defend.

THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT RECENTLY HELD THAT THE DUTY TO DEFEND IN LONG LEGACY DISEASE CASES SHOULD BE PRO RATED BETWEEN THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE INSURED IN SITUATIONS WHERE AN OCCURRENCE-BASED POLICIES PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR ONLY A PORTION

In Arceneanux, et al. v. Amstar Corp., et al., 299 So.3d 277, 2015-0588(La., 9/7/16), the Louisiana Supreme Court allocated the costs of defending long legacy disease claims between the insurer and insured based on a time-on-the-risk allocation model. Under existing Louisiana law, an insurer's duty to indemnify was to be prorated among insurance carriers based on a time-on-the-risk approach the insurance carriers that were on the risk during the period of exposure to the injurious conditions. While the law in Louisiana was settled regarding time-on-the-risk pro rata allocation applying to indemnification, there was no Louisiana precedent on whether the insurer's duty to defend could also be pro rated among the insurers and the insured during periods of self-insurance in long latency disease cases. The Court then adopted the time-on-risk method of allocation for defense costs, adopting the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Ins. Co. of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1980), clarified on re'hrg 657 F.2nd 814 (6th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 454 U.S. 1109 (1981). The Louisiana Court found that the pro rata allocated scheme was an equitable system.

FindLaw Network

Contact Steven Plitt

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Phone: 602-322-4038