Emily S. Hart

Subscribe to Emily S. Hart's Posts

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has concluded that a question of fact exists regarding when a “claim” was “first made” where the recipient of a “claim” sent via email allegedly did not become aware of the claim until days after it was received in the recipient’s inbox, after the end of the policy period.  Lloyd’s Syndicate 3624 (Hiscox) v. Clow, 2020 WL 4194213 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2020).
…
Continue Reading Question of Fact When “Claim” “First Made” Where Insured Allegedly Did Not Become Aware of Claim Until After Policy Period

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying New York law, has held that no coverage is available for related claims reported to the insurer after the end of the policy period in which the first claim was made.  Berkley Assurance Co. v. Hunt Constr. Group, Inc., 2020 WL 3000399 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2020).
…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Related Claims Reported After Policy Period During Which Claim Was First Made

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying California and Virginia law, has found that wrongful acts alleged in two ERISA class actions comprising different class periods are causally and logically related.  Northrop Grumman Corp. v. AXIS Reinsurance Co., 2020 WL 1933264 (3rd Cir. Apr. 22, 2020).
…
Continue Reading Class Actions Comprising Different Class Periods Causally and Logically Related

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, applying Kentucky law, has held that incarceration is a continuous injury sufficient to trigger a duty to defend in a wrongful conviction lawsuit under law enforcement liability policies in effect during the claimant’s incarceration.  St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. City of Newport, 2020 WL 1514837 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020).
…
Continue Reading Incarceration Constitutes Continuous Injury Triggering Duty to Defend

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Kansas law, has held that a contract exclusion bars coverage for a lawsuit asserting claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty for failure to purchase a deceased owner’s stock under a stock repurchase agreement.  Russell v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2020 WL 812910 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).  The court also held that the agreement was not an employee benefit plan that would implicate fiduciary liability coverage.
…
Continue Reading Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit Over Stock Repurchase Agreement

In a win for Wiley Rein’s client, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying Connecticut law, has held that no coverage is available for a lawsuit seeking recovery of disputed legal fees because the relief sought does not constitute covered “damages” and because the insured was not performing “legal services.”  Continental Cas. Co. v. Parnoff, 2019 WL 6999867 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019).
…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Lawsuit Seeking Recovery of Disputed Legal Fees

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insurer is not required to show prejudice to deny coverage under a claims-made-and-reported policy based on an insured’s late notice.  Euraupair Int’l, Inc. v. Ironshore Spec. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6817593 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Notice Prejudice Rule Not Applicable to Claims-Made-And-Reported Policies

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, applying Minnesota law, has held that coverage is unavailable where the insured failed to report the claim to its insurer “as soon as practicable” as required by the policy’s notice provision.  Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Assessment Sys. Corp., 2019 WL 4014955 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Failure to Provide Notice of Claim “As Soon As Practicable” Precludes Coverage

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, applying Arkansas law, has held that coverage is unavailable for a lawsuit arising out of Interrelated Wrongful Acts at issue in an EEOC charge where the insured failed to report the EEOC charge to its insurer within the claims-made policy’s reporting period.  Pine Bluff Sch. Dist. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3074011 (E.D. Ark. July 12, 2019).  The court also held that the insurer was not barred from denying coverage based on waiver or estoppel after it first provided a defense under a reservation of rights.
…
Continue Reading Failure to Report EEOC Charge Precludes Coverage for Interrelated Lawsuit