-
March 11, 2025
NEW YORK — A New York County Supreme Court justice granted a motion for summary judgment filed by insurers in an environmental contamination coverage suit after determining that the pollution exclusion in the various insurers’ policies bars coverage for the environmental contamination and that the sudden and accidental exception to the exclusion does not apply to provide coverage for the contamination.
-
March 10, 2025
By Scott M. Seaman
-
March 10, 2025
OMAHA, Neb. — A federal judge in Nebraska dismissed with prejudice a suit involving a reinsurance contract and a settlement with the state of Montana over alleged asbestos exposures, following a joint stipulation between the parties to dismiss all claims.
-
March 05, 2025
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Calling both sides’ interpretations of facultative reinsurance certificates “plausible,” a New York federal judge denied competing summary judgment motions in a breach of contract suit involving a confidential environmental losses settlement.
-
March 04, 2025
ROCK ISLAND, Ill. — An Illinois federal judge entered an order of default against insureds who failed to respond to the insurer’s second amended complaint, which seeks a declaration that its policy’s asbestos exclusion and pollution exclusion bar coverage for the alleged improper disposal of construction debris by the insured.
-
March 04, 2025
NEW YORK — A commercial general liability insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by determining that more than 100 underlying silica exposure lawsuits filed against the insured are subject to coverage under only one insurance policy and involve only a single occurrence under the policy, an insured alleges in a complaint filed in New York federal court.
-
March 04, 2025
ST. LOUIS — A commercial umbrella liability insurer’s complaint seeking a declaration that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify its insured for underlying asbestos bodily injury suits was properly dismissed based on the doctrine of claim preclusion because the insurer’s defense and indemnity obligations were already decided by the Missouri state court in a similar suit filed by the insured, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said.
-
March 04, 2025
By Scott M. Seaman
-
March 04, 2025
SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A Texas federal magistrate judge recommended granting an insurer’s motion for summary judgment as it applies to the insurer’s duty to defend because a policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for an underlying environmental contamination lawsuit filed against the insured.
-
March 03, 2025
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that a pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for the carbon monoxide death of a 17-year-old because it was reasonable for the insureds to expect that coverage would be afforded based on a reading of the pollution exclusion.
-
March 03, 2025
ABERDEEN, Miss. — Consistent with a Mississippi federal judge’s order, an insured homeowner filed an amended complaint against her homeowners insurer, clarifying the date on which the insured was forced to move out of her home as a result of black mold growth.
-
February 25, 2025
MIAMI — A Florida appeals panel on Feb. 19 affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer in an insured’s declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking coverage for its business interruption losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, concluding that nothing in the record supports the insured’s contention that the governmental shutdown orders “were issued ‘due to’ specific conditions at the premises of the Insured.”
-
February 25, 2025
MIDLAND, Texas — A Texas federal judge entered judgment in favor of an insured in a dispute over reimbursement for underlying lawsuits arising out of an explosion at a saltwater facility after determining that the insurer failed to show that a jury verdict in favor of the insured was against the weight of the evidence and after determining that the policy’s hydrofracking exclusion does not bar coverage for the underlying suits.
-
February 24, 2025
SEATTLE — A trial court correctly found that an insured was permitted to allocate more than $500,000 in defense costs incurred for environmental contamination liabilities to an excess insurer because the timing of the allocation of the defense costs was appropriate based on the timing of a decision a prior appeal filed by the insured, the insured says in a response brief filed in the Division I Washington Court of Appeals.
-
February 24, 2025
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida federal judge partially denied a commercial property insurer’s motion for summary judgment after determining that questions of fact exist as to whether the policy’s repeated leakage of water exclusion and preexisting damage exclusion bar coverage for additional damages sought by an insured for water damages within its building.
-
February 20, 2025
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A lower court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a homeowners insurer because the insureds’ assignee failed to offer sufficient evidence showing that the insurer’s handling of its insureds’ storm damage claim constituted a breach of contract or bad faith, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said in affirming the lower court’s ruling.
-
February 18, 2025
NEW YORK — Concluding that a condominium had been “put to its intended use” prior to a water damage incident that arose during remodeling, a New York federal judge found that a commercial general liability insurer was obligated to defend both a contractor and subcontractor from claims brought by an adjoining unit owner.
-
February 18, 2025
ABERDEEEN, Miss. — A Mississippi federal judge granted an insured’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint against a homeowners insurer to clarify the date on which the insured was forced to move out of her home as a result of black mold growth because the date is necessary to clarify before a decision can be made as to whether the insured’s claims against the insurer are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
-
February 18, 2025
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on April 10 in an insured’s appeal of a district court’s ruling that no coverage is owed by insurers pursuant to the policies’ radioactive materials exclusion for an underlying suit seeking damages for bodily injuries caused by exposure to electromagnetic (EMF) radiation from the insured’s electric transformers.
-
February 18, 2025
PHOENIX — An excess commercial insurer filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in an Arizona federal court arguing that underlying defective workmanship allegations “standing alone do not constitute an ‘occurrence’” and repair of the purported defective workmanship or product fail to constitute “property damage” to trigger coverage, seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its subcontractor insured and an underlying $6 million stipulated judgment cannot be enforced against it.
-
February 13, 2025
By Robert D. Chesler, Seán McCabe, Madilynne Lee and James A. Goodridge
-
February 13, 2025
SEATTLE — An insured’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against a homeowners insurer must be dismissed because the claim is duplicative of the insured’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, a Washington federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss the claim.
-
February 13, 2025
NEW ORLEANS — A district court’s judgment in favor of an insurer on an insured’s claim for violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA) must be vacated because the insurer is not absolved from liability under the TPPCA simply because it paid an appraisal award in full; however, the district court’s judgment in favor of the insurer on the insured’s bad faith claims must be affirmed because the insured’s payment of the appraisal award forecloses the insured’s bad faith claims, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said.
-
February 12, 2025
DETROIT — An insurance company on Feb. 11 sued McLaren Health Care Corp. in Michigan federal court arguing that it has no duty to indemnify McLaren in connection with a $641 million settlement that was reached in the litigation over the lead-contaminated water claims in the city of Flint, Mich., where McLaren runs a hospital in which patients were injured during the Flint water crisis. The insurer says it has no duty to indemnify McLaren and argues that it has “no liability of any kind” under the policy it issued.
-
February 11, 2025
LOS ANGELES — A commercial general liability insurer filed suit in California federal court, seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging that exposure to the insured’s hair styling straightening products caused individuals to be diagnosed with cancer and leukemia because the insured failed to provide timely notice of the suit and had knowledge before the issuance of the policy that its products were unsafe.