Photo of Anna Schaffner

Anna represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies.

In a matter of first impression, the Delaware Superior Court has adopted the “larger settlement rule” to govern allocation of settlement amounts where (i) a settlement resolves, at least in part, insured claims; (ii) the parties cannot agree as to the allocation of amounts attributable to covered versus non-covered claims; and (iii) the policy’s allocation provision does not prescribe a specific allocation method.  Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock, No. N16C-01-104 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2020).

Continue Reading

Applying Illinois Law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has held that an insurer had no duty to defend a claim reported more than nine months after the end of the policy period.  Wesco Ins. Co. v. Elements Architectural Grp., Inc., 2019 WL 5725440 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2019).

Continue Reading

In a win for an insurer represented by Wiley Rein, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has held that an intra-corporate dispute between shareholders was not covered under an EPL insuring agreement because the underlying demand letter and complaint did not state a claim “for” an Employment Practices Wrongful Act, and it was not covered under a D&O insuring agreement because the claimant owned 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the insured company at the time the claim was made.  Madison Mechanical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6035690 (D. Md. Nov. 14, 2019).

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that California Insurance Code Section 533.5 precludes a duty to defend any claim brought by the California Attorney General under the Unfair Competition Law or False Advertising Law for the recovery of a fine, penalty, or restitution.  Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 2019 WL 4462613 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying Texas law, the Fifth Circuit has held that a D&O policy’s securities exclusion barred coverage for a suit for misrepresentation and misconduct that arose out of a sale of equity interests.  Gleason v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3437642 at *1 (5th Cir. July 30, 2019).

Continue Reading

The Ohio Court of Appeals has held that an “of counsel” attorney was an “Insured Person” under his former law firm’s professional liability policy for purposes of a malpractice action involving allegations that occurred both before and after the attorney worked at the firm.  Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P. v. Miller Goler Faeges Lapine, L.L.P., 2019 WL 2319296 (Ohio Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, applying Nevada law, has held that the court’s prior favorable coverage determination was evidence that an insurer did not act in bad faith when refusing to defend or provide coverage under a policy.  My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2019 WL 1810956 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2019).

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, applying Texas law, has held that a government-issued subpoena constituted a “Claim” under a directors and officers liability policy, but also determined that the policy’s “run-off exclusion” barred coverage.  Ocean’s Healthcare, L.L.C. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1437955 (E.D. Tex. March 30, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying Nevada law, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has held that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured charter school because a “Notice of Closure” constituted a “claim” first made before the policy period.  Argent Preparatory Acad. f/k/a Silver State Charter Sch. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1049384 (D. Nev. Mar. 4, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying California law, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that a follow-form excess insurer was not bound by the primary insurer’s decision to pay a settlement because the settlement constituted uninsurable disgorgement that did not trigger the excess insurer’s policy.  Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2:17-CV-8660 (C.D. Cal Nov. 16, 2018).

Continue Reading