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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Applying Texas law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insured because the insured’s claim supplement to a renewal application did not constitute proper notice of a claim pursuant to the terms of the claims-made-and-reported policy. Landmark Ins. Co. v. Lonergan Law Firm, PLLC, 2019 WL 2295358 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2019).
Continue Reading
Applying Delaware law, a Delaware state trial court has held that insurers did not act in bad faith by denying coverage for underlying settlements when they had reasonable grounds for their position and promptly sought a declaratory judgment as to their indemnification responsibilities. Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock., 2019 WL 1932536 (Del. Super. Ct. May 1, 2019).
Continue Reading
Applying Illinois law, a federal district court has held that a cooperation clause in an excess insurer’s policy did not entitle the excess insurer to compel production of the insured’s settlement agreement with a primary carrier. Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 2019 WL 1499300 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2019).
Continue Reading