An Illinois federal district court has ruled that a technology company’s failure to provide timely notice of a computer outage and related email demand barred coverage for a later-filed lawsuit. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. iNetworks Servs., LLC, 2020 WL 1491139 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2020).
Continue Reading Untimely Notice of Server Outage and Related Client Communications Bars Coverage for Claim Filed against Technology Service Provider
Applying California Law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has held that an insurer must pay defense costs contemporaneously, even where the policy’s advancement provision merely requires payment “prior to final disposition of a claim,” because the insured became legally liable for defense costs as they were incurred. Renovate Am., Inc. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 1458, 2019 WL 6716735 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2019). The court further held that the insured was excused from obtaining the insurer’s prior written consent regarding defense arrangements given the insurer’s seven-month delay in responding to the insured’s initial notice.
Continue Reading Insurer Must Advance Defense Costs as Incurred and Cannot Enforce Policy’s Defense Arrangement Consent Provision
Applying 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
Continue Reading Court Sends Disputes Regarding Cooperation and Prior Knowledge to the Jury
The 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
Continue Reading Excess E&O Policy Not Triggered After Exhaustion Of Primary Policy, Where There Is At Least Potential For Coverage Under Separate D&O Policy
An 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 Illinois Court Holds Insured is Entitled to Independent Counsel to Defend Uncovered Punitive Damages Claim
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 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 Insurer Was Not Prejudiced by Insured’s Failure to Cooperate
The 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 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2016).
Continue Reading Claim for Trademark-Infringing Telephone Scam Not Interrelated with Claim for Internet Scam
The 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 curiae in support of the insurer.
Continue Reading Colorado Supreme Court: No Prejudice Required to Deny Coverage for Settlement Without Consent
The 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. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Am. Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014 (Pa. July 21, 2015).
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts “Reasonableness” Standard for Enforcing Cooperation Provision When Insurer Breaches its “Duty to Settle”