By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settle,Cooperation,Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionApplying Georgia law, a federal district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment regarding cooperation and prior knowledge, sending both issues to the jury. Lloyd’s of London Syndicate No. 2623 v. Navicent Health Inc., 2019 WL 4889269 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 3, 2019). However, the court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the insured’s bad… Continue Reading
By William Knauss on Posted in Cooperation,Excess insurance/exhaustion,Other InsuranceThe United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that an excess E&O policy was not triggered where coverage under a potentially responsive D&O policy had not yet been resolved. Bedivere Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 2019 WL 4752051 (D. Kan. Sept. 30,… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in CooperationAn Illinois appeals court has held that an insured had the right to select independent counsel under a duty to defend policy where the insured faced a substantial, uncovered punitive damages award. See Xtreme Prot. Servs., LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1976482 (Ill. App. Ct. May 3, 2019).… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Cooperation,Excess insurance/exhaustionApplying 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
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in CooperationApplying Maryland law, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has held that an insurer was required to satisfy an underlying judgment because its insured’s failure to cooperate did not prejudice the insurer’s ability to defend. Mora v. Lancet Indem. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 2017 WL 4618461 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2017).… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Allocation,Cooperation,Other: Trademark Exclusion,Related Claims and associated exclusionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a telephone marketing scam and an internet false advertising scam were not interrelated wrongful acts precluding coverage because the conduct behind the alleged wrongful acts was different. Connect America Holdings, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1254073… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Consent to settle/incur defense costs,CooperationThe Colorado Supreme Court has held that an insurer had no duty to cover a settlement entered into by an insured regardless whether the insured’s failure to obtain the insurer’s consent prejudiced it in any way. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co., 2016 WL 1639565 (Colo. Apr. 25, 2016). Wiley Rein represented an amicus… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settle,Consent to settle/incur defense costs,Cooperation,LossThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that a group of insureds could recover from their insurers for a settlement that was “fair, reasonable and non-collusive” regardless of whether the insureds obtained the insurers’ consent as required by the policies and regardless of whether the insureds failed to show that the insurers acted in bad faith.… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settle,Consent to settle/incur defense costs,Cooperation,LossThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Wiley Rein’s client, an insurer, when it affirmed the dismissal of a complaint filed by an insured seeking coverage for amounts paid to settle an underlying lawsuit and alleging bad faith on the grounds that the insured settled the underlying lawsuit… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settle,Consent to settle/incur defense costs,Cooperation,LossThe Supreme Court of Georgia has held unanimously that an insured’s complaint against its insurer seeking coverage for amounts paid to settle an underlying lawsuit and alleging bad faith was properly dismissed because the insured settled the underlying lawsuit without its insurer’s consent. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Spec. Ins. Co., No. S15Q0418… Continue Reading
By Leland H. Jones, IV on Posted in Consent to settle/incur defense costs,CooperationApplying New York law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a judgment creditor of an insured that defaulted in an underlying action had no right to policy proceeds because the insured breached the policy by allowing a default judgment to be entered against it. XL Specialty… Continue Reading
