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

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

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 Claim Supplement in Renewal Application Did Not Constitute Proper Notice under Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy