The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of a claim under a claims-made policy barred coverage for that suit.  Frazier v. Exide Techs., No. 17-2399, 2018 WL 2727396 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018).

Continue Reading

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, applying Michigan law, has held that an insured vs. insured exclusion bars coverage for a claim against an insured company’s former officers assigned during bankruptcy to a liquidating trust. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Zucker, 2017 WL 2641085 (6th Cir. June 20, 2017).

Continue Reading

Applying Texas law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that an exclusion barring coverage for any claim brought or maintained by or on behalf of any creditor of the company precluded coverage for claims by lenders against company officers alleging that they misrepresented the financial condition of a company.  Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Verbeek, 2016 WL 5400412 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016)

Continue Reading

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida has held that an attorney’s overbilling stemming from fraudulent misrepresentations likely involved “professional services” under a lawyers’ professional liability policy but coverage was barred, in any event, under the policy’s exclusion for “criminal, dishonest, intentional, malicious or fraudulent act(s).” Fla. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. West (In re West), 2015 WL 2445315 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. May 20, 2015).
Continue Reading

Applying New York law, a New York state intermediate appellate court has held that the bankruptcy exclusion of a lender’s political risk insurance policy barred coverage for a claim following a borrower’s bankruptcy petition. CT Investment Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Chartis Spec. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 2184309 (N.Y. App. Div. May 12, 2015). The court also concluded that a foreign government’s stay of loan payments and money transfers following the borrower’s bankruptcy petition did not trigger the policy’s coverage for certain unlawful or prohibitory acts of a foreign government.
Continue Reading