Jessica N. Gallinaro

Subscribe to Jessica N. Gallinaro's Posts
Follow: Read more about Jessica N. Gallinaro

Applying the law of Mississippi, a federal district court held that coverage was unavailable under a claims-made policy for an underlying lawsuit because the lawsuit, which was filed after the expiration of the policy period, did not allege that the insured had provided legal services “for others” as required by the policy.  Blackburn Law Firm, PLLC v. Allied World Ins. Co., 2021 WL 817882 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 3, 2021).
…
Continue Reading Lawsuit Filed After Expiration of Policy Period for Lawyer’s Negligent Drafting of His Own Trust Agreement Not Covered Under Claims-Made Professional Liability Policy

Applying the law of Puerto Rico, a federal district court held that coverage was unavailable for an underlying lawsuit under a claims-made policy because the claim was deemed first made prior to the inception of the policy period.  Galarza-Cruz v. Grupo HIMA San Pablo, Inc., 2020 WL 2843028 (D.P.R. May 28, 2020).
…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Claim Deemed First Made Prior to Inception of Policy Period

In a win for Wiley’s client, a Texas appellate court held that a D&O policy did not cover Wells notices issued by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its enforcement action because they involved the same series of related facts as the SEC’s original investigation and shareholder litigation initiated before the claims-made policy period.  UniPixel, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1528098 (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2020).
…
Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Action Deemed a Single Claim With Prior SEC Investigation and Shareholder Suits

The Fifth Circuit, applying Louisiana law, has held that coverage was unavailable for an $11.7 million settlement with the government because the settlement did not relate to “professional services” provided by the insured to its “client.”  IberiaBank Corp. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1284958 (5th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020).
…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Underlying Settlement with Government Because Government Was Not Insured’s “Client”

A federal district court applying Alabama law has held that an insurer owed no defense or indemnification obligations because the employment practices at issue in an underlying discrimination action against the insured occurred prior to the policy’s retroactive date.  Elite Refreshment Servs. LLC v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 470289 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020).
…
Continue Reading Retroactive Date Bars Coverage for Underlying Discrimination Action

The Delaware Supreme Court has held that D&O policies do not afford coverage for an underlying lawsuit asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary…
Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Holds Trustee Action Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unlawful Dividend, and Fraudulent Transfer Is Not a “Securities Claim”

Applying Iowa law, a federal district court has held that an insured’s failure to give notice of a letter seeking information in connection with a…
Continue Reading Insurer Could Not Assert Late Notice Defense Because Letter from Department of Labor Did Not Allege a “Fiduciary Claim” for a “Wrongful Act”

Applying California law, a federal district court has held that a wage and hour endorsement limited the coverage available for two class action lawsuits to $25,000 in defense costs.  Houston Cas. Co v. Great American Chicken Corp., Inc., 2019 WL 3886484 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019).
…
Continue Reading California Court Holds that “Wage and Hour Law” Limitations on Coverage Unambiguously Applied to Labor Code Violations

Applying Texas law, a federal appellate court has held that an insured is not entitled to coverage for subsequent related claims when the insured gave late notice of the first claim.  ADI Worldlink, L.L.C.. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 2019 WL 3521815 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit: Late Notice of First Claim Bars Coverage for Related Claims

Applying New York law, a Delaware state court has held that an insurer owed its insured a duty to defend because the factual allegations in two underlying lawsuits arguably involved the insured’s performance of “Professional Services” and no exclusion applied to otherwise bar coverage.  Steadfast Ins. Co. v. DBI Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 2613195 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Insurer Must Defend Insured in Claim Alleging Use of Counterfeit Materials Because “Professional Services” Definition Was Ambiguous and No Exclusion Barred Coverage