Applying 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
Search Results for:
Claim for Trademark-Infringing Telephone Scam Not Interrelated with Claim for Internet Scam
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
Colorado Supreme Court: No Prejudice Required to Deny Coverage for Settlement Without Consent
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
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts “Reasonableness” Standard for Enforcing Cooperation Provision When Insurer Breaches its “Duty to Settle”
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
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Insured’s Complaint in “Consent to Settle” Case
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
Georgia Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That Insured Cannot Sue Insurer for Amounts Paid to Settle Claim Without Insurer’s Consent
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
Claimant Has No Right to Policy Proceeds as Judgment Creditor of Insured Who Defaulted in Underlying Action
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