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 Dole Insurers Did Not Act in Bad Faith

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 Excess Carrier Not Entitled to Compel Production of Insured’s Settlement Agreement with Underlying Carriers

Applying California law, a federal district court has held that an original and an amended complaint arising out of a series of related wrongful acts were deemed a single claim under an earlier policy, such that coverage was barred under a policy issued later.  General Ins. Co. v. INB Ins. Servs. Corp., 2019 WL 1318252 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019).

Continue Reading Coverage Barred Because Causally Related Claims Deemed a Single Claim Under Earlier Policy

Applying Wisconsin law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds because exclusions for claims arising from violations of securities laws or consumer protection laws, and from the failure of investments to perform as desired, barred coverage.  Hanover Ins. Co. v. BMOC, Inc., 2019 WL 949215 (W. D. Wis. Feb. 27, 2019).

Continue Reading No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Due to Securities Exclusion, Consumer Protection Law Exclusion, and Investment Performance Exclusion, but Insurer Cannot Recoup Defense Costs

Applying Florida law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its individual insureds because an exclusion for claims arising from the purchase or sale of securities barred coverage.  Colorado Boxed Beef Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2019 WL 77376 (M. D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2018).

Continue Reading No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Due to Securities Exclusion

Applying California and Virginia law, a federal district court has held that two class action lawsuits alleging similar wrongful conduct, but brought by different classes for different class periods, were nonetheless related and constituted a single claim.  Northrop Grumman Corp. v. AXIS Reinsurance Co., 2018 WL 5314918 (D. Del. Oct. 26, 2018).

Continue Reading Two Class Action Lawsuits Are “Related,” Despite Different Plaintiffs and Different Time Periods

Applying Massachusetts law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed a duty to defend based on allegations regarding a law firm’s failures to notify clients of an attorney’s departure and to transfer client materials.  Governo v. Allied World Ins. Co., 2018 WL4685566 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2018).  In reaching this determination, the court determined the alleged conduct satisfied the policy’s definition of “Legal Services Wrongful Acts.”

Continue Reading Law Firm Entitled to Coverage for Claim Alleging Failure to Transfer Client Materials and to Notify Clients of Departing Attorneys

In a win for Wiley Rein’s client, a Texas state court, applying Texas law, has held that no coverage was available for Wells notices issued and an enforcement action brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because they were related to the SEC’s original investigation, which commenced prior to the claims-made policy period.  UniPixel, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cnty. Aug. 23, 2018).

Continue Reading Wells Notices and Subsequent Enforcement Action Deemed First Made at the Time when SEC Original Investigation Began

Applying Rhode Island law, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has held that an insured was entitled to coverage for a settlement because the settlement related back to a prior notice of circumstances.  Twin River Worldwide Holdings, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2018 WL 3640995 (D.R.I. Aug. 1, 2018).

Continue Reading Insured’s Payment to Stockholders to Settle Bankruptcy Dispute Relates to Prior Notice of Circumstances

Applying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a professional services exclusion in a D&O policy barred coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act.  Hotchalk, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2018 WL 2473474 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018).

Continue Reading Professional Services Exclusion Precludes Coverage for False Claims Act Lawsuit