Photo of Nathan Lovett

Nate represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies. Nate, a certified Legal Lean Sigma Institute (LLSI) White Belt, uses the LLSI process and project management tools to continually improve the value proposition the firm delivers to its clients.

The Indiana Supreme Court, applying Indiana law, has held that an insured may be entitled to coverage for a ransom payment under a commercial crime policy if the circumstances of the attack “fraudulently caused” the insured to make the payment.  The court also held that the ransom payment resulted “directly” from the use of a computer.  G&G Oil Co. of Ind., Inc. v. Continental W. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1034982 (Ind. Mar. 18, 2021).

Continue Reading Indiana Supreme Court Revives Insured’s Case for Ransomware-Related Coverage Under Commercial Crime Policy

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, has held that an insurer does not need to cover more than $480,000 that an insured transferred pursuant to fraudulent instructions. The court determined that the circumstances implicated an exclusion that precluded coverage for loss that arose out of the theft or misappropriation of funds. Authentic Title Servs., Inc v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6739880 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2020).
Continue Reading No Coverage Under E&O Policy for Insured’s Loss of Funds Sent Pursuant to Fraudulent Instructions

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an excess insurer could not second-guess the payment decisions of underlying insurers absent a showing of fraud or bad faith, or a policy provision expressly granting the insurer such rights.  Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2020 WL 5509743 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020).

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Excess Carrier Not Entitled to Challenge Payment Decisions of Underlying Carriers

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that fact issues remain with regard to whether the insured reasonably could have expected a pre-policy period enforcement notice to give rise to claim.  Wallingford Grp., LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4464629 (D. Conn. May 11, 2020).

Continue Reading Fact Issues Preclude Summary Judgment on Prior Knowledge Exclusion

Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an insurer wrongfully withdrew its defense after paying a covered verdict because the duty to defend extended until the court deemed the verdict to be “satisfied.”  Highland Park Care Ctr., LLC v. Campmed Cas. & Indem. Co., 2020 WL 2571900 (W.D. Pa. May 21, 2020).  The court also concluded that the policy’s standard-interest clause required the insurer to pay all post-judgment interest on the covered verdict.

Continue Reading Insurer Required to Defend Until “Satisfaction” of Covered Verdict

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, applying Kentucky law, has held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured given the applicability of the policy’s “contractual liability” exclusion to the claims at issue.  See Global Holdings, LLC v. Navigators Mgmt. Co., 2020 WL 3065914 (E.D. Ky. June 9, 2020).

Continue Reading Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Class Action

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment voiding a medical malpractice liability policy, finding that triable issues of fact remained about whether an insured could have anticipated litigation stemming from past medical procedures at the time it completed its policy application.  MDAdvantage Ins. Co. of N.J. v. Hasiuk, 2020 WL 1531817 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020).

Continue Reading Issues of Fact Halt Insurer’s Attempt to Rescind Malpractice Policy

Applying Illinois law, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois has held that an insurer had no duty to cover defense costs for affirmative claims that involved, but were not brought by, its insured.  Marquis Energy LLC v. Federal Ins. Co., 2020 WL 853503 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2020).

Continue Reading Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Insured in “Defensive” Arbitration Proceeding

Applying Maryland law, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has held that an insurer had no right to allocate a global settlement of two underlying lawsuits between covered and non-covered claims, where the damages sought in each action were identical and based on the same misconduct.  Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. The Fund for Animals, Inc., 2019 WL 7369221 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 30, 2019).

Continue Reading Court Holds Insurer Cannot Allocate Settlement Between Covered and Non-Covered Claims

Applying Illinois law, a federal district court has held that a policy’s sexual misconduct exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage for an underlying lawsuit against a school district involving a student’s acts of sexual misconduct, where the applicability of the exclusion in that context was not “clear and free from doubt.”  Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Macomb Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 5417144 (C.D. Ill. Aug 6, 2019).

Continue Reading Coverage for Lawsuit Against School District Involving Student’s Acts of Sexual Misconduct Not Barred by Sexual Misconduct Exclusion