Posts in Policy Requirements and Conditions.
Coverage Conditioned on Unambiguous Notice Requirements not Subject to Notice-Prejudice Rule
Coverage Conditioned on Unambiguous Notice Requirements not Subject to Notice-Prejudice Rule
Utah Federal Court Holds That Malpractice Claim “Resulting From” Sanctions on Insured Law Firm Seeks “Damages”
Utah Federal Court Holds That Malpractice Claim “Resulting From” Sanctions on Insured Law Firm Seeks “Damages”
Notice-Prejudice Rule Does Not Apply to Claims-Made Professional Liability Policies
Notice-Prejudice Rule Does Not Apply to Claims-Made Professional Liability Policies
Notice-Prejudice Rule Inapplicable Where Insured Fails to Provide Any Notice Under Claims-Made Policies
Notice-Prejudice Rule Inapplicable Where Insured Fails to Provide Any Notice Under Claims-Made Policies
Material Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment that Insurer Waived or was Estopped from Asserting Coverage Defenses
Material Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment that Insurer Waived or was Estopped from Asserting Coverage Defenses
No Coverage for Loss in Consequence of Social Engineering Fraud
No Coverage for Loss in Consequence of Social Engineering Fraud
Excess “Other Insurance” Clause Relieves Insurer of Duty to Contribute to Defense
Excess “Other Insurance” Clause Relieves Insurer of Duty to Contribute to Defense
Policy Requires Allocation of Defense Costs Based Upon Parties’ Relative Legal Exposure
Policy Requires Allocation of Defense Costs Based Upon Parties’ Relative Legal Exposure
Excess “Other Insurance” Provision Does Not Relieve Insurer’s Duty to Defend
Excess “Other Insurance” Provision Does Not Relieve Insurer’s Duty to Defend
On Motion for Reconsideration, Southern District of New York Holds that Late-Notice Defense as to Claims-Made-And-Reported Policies Cannot Be Waived
On Motion for Reconsideration, Southern District of New York Holds that Late-Notice Defense as to Claims-Made-And-Reported Policies Cannot Be Waived
E&O Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Dispute Limited to Recovery of Fees
E&O Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Dispute Limited to Recovery of Fees
No Coverage for Malpractice Action Alleging Undisclosed “Wrongful Acts” Pre-Dating Policy’s Effective Date
No Coverage for Malpractice Action Alleging Undisclosed “Wrongful Acts” Pre-Dating Policy’s Effective Date
Insurer’s Refusal to Participate in Settlement Negotiations Waives Consent-to-Settle Requirement
Insurer’s Refusal to Participate in Settlement Negotiations Waives Consent-to-Settle Requirement
Excess E&O Insurer Must Reimburse Defense Expenses Pending Resolution of Insured’s Coverage Dispute with Primary D&O Insurer
Excess E&O Insurer Must Reimburse Defense Expenses Pending Resolution of Insured’s Coverage Dispute with Primary D&O Insurer
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Lanham Act “False Advertising” Claims Despite False Advertising and Trademark Exclusions
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Lanham Act “False Advertising” Claims Despite False Advertising and Trademark Exclusions
Ninth Circuit: Excess Carrier Not Entitled to Challenge Payment Decisions of Underlying Carriers
Ninth Circuit: Excess Carrier Not Entitled to Challenge Payment Decisions of Underlying Carriers
Insurer that Breached Duty to Defend Bears Burden on Allocation of Defense Costs
Insurer that Breached Duty to Defend Bears Burden on Allocation of Defense Costs
Insurer Required to Defend Until “Satisfaction” of Covered Verdict
Insurer Required to Defend Until “Satisfaction” of Covered Verdict
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Insured in “Defensive” Arbitration Proceeding
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Insured in “Defensive” Arbitration Proceeding
Insurer Must Advance Defense Costs as Incurred and Cannot Enforce Policy’s Defense Arrangement Consent Provision
Insurer Must Advance Defense Costs as Incurred and Cannot Enforce Policy’s Defense Arrangement Consent Provision
Excess E&O Policy Not Triggered After Exhaustion Of Primary Policy, Where There Is At Least Potential For Coverage Under Separate D&O Policy
Insurer Did Not Breach Any Duty to Insured Where Payment of Defense Costs Exhausted Policy Limit
No Duty to Defend Claims Brought by California Attorney General Under Unfair Competition or False Advertising Laws
Illinois Court Holds Insured is Entitled to Independent Counsel to Defend Uncovered Punitive Damages Claim
Excess Carrier Not Entitled to Compel Production of Insured’s Settlement Agreement with Underlying Carriers
Excess Insurer Not Bound by Primary Insurer’s Payment of Uninsurable Disgorgement Settlement
Four-Month Delay in Sending Reservation of Rights Letter Creates Issue of Fact
Georgia Court Reaffirms Longstanding Rule on Conflicting “Other Insurance” Provisions
Insureds Entitled to Advancement of Defense Costs But Not Equitable Reallocation of Policy Proceeds
Ninth Circuit Holds Excess Policy Unambiguously Required Exhaustion of Underlying Limits by Insurers Under Either New York or California Law
In Suit Against General Contractor, Sub-Contractor’s Policy Provides Primary Coverage Over General Contractor’s Own Policy
D&O Insurer Has Duty to Defend Where Allegations Arguably Implicate Insured Capacity
Insured’s Non-Covered Counterclaim Does Not Create Conflict Entitling It to Select Independent Counsel
Insurer Obligated to Pay Full Policy Limits on Loss Despite Potentially Concurrent Policies With Competing “Other Insurance” Clauses
Insurer Was Not Prejudiced by Insured’s Failure to Cooperate
Following New Jersey Statutory Merger, Surviving Entity Acquires All Rights and Obligations Under Target Entity’s Insurance Policy
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Insured for Action Alleging Solely Intentional Wrongdoing
Insurer’s Allegations that Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Are Not Covered Loss Survive Motion to Dismiss
Insurer’s Duty to Defend Ends at Tender of Policy Limits
Duty to Defend Does Not Extend to Prosecution of Affirmative Counterclaims
Insurer’s Consent to Settle Not Required Following Effective Denial of Coverage
Explicit Allegation of Acts Arising from Professional Services Required to Trigger E&O Policy
Underlying Insurer’s Agreement to Pay Limits Does Not Trigger Exhaustion for Excess Policy Requiring “Actual Payment”
No Coverage Under E&O Policy for Real Estate Transaction Involving Payment of Undisclosed Fee
Court Finds Insurer Not Bound by $1 Million Consent Judgment
Judgment Creditor Not Entitled to Policy Proceeds Where Insured Defaulted Without Insurer’s Consent
Insured’s Failure to Obtain Insurer’s Consent Prior to Executing Settlement Term Sheet Precludes Coverage
Florida Statute Does Not Estop Insurer from Denying Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Defense Costs
"Other Insurance” Clause Does Not Create Right to Equitable Contribution Against Excess Policy
Excess Insurer’s Unambiguous Consent-to-Settlement Provision Bars Coverage
Suit for Reimbursement of Beauty School Expenses Under California Labor Law Triggers Duty to Defend Despite Wage and Hour Exclusion
No Coverage for Voluntary Remediation Because Insured Not “Legally Obligated to Pay” for Work
Certain Extrinsic Evidence Permissible for Purposes of Establishing No Duty to Defend Under Illinois Law
Insured Required to Reimburse Defense Costs Paid by Insurer for Non-Covered Claim
No Double Recovery Under Policy for Amounts Paid by Contractual Indemnitor
Colorado Supreme Court: No Prejudice Required to Deny Coverage for Settlement Without Consent
Insurer May Allocate Defense Costs Under Duty to Defend Policy
Insured Cannot “Fill the Gap” Between Primary Insurer’s Settlement Payment and Underlying Limit
Third Circuit Holds That “Renewal” Policy Must Have “The Same, Or Nearly The Same, Terms” As Original Policy
Insurer Not Required to Advance Defense Costs Under A-Side Policy on Pro Rata Basis with Underlying D&O Policy
Equitable Subrogation Allows Excess Insurer to Recover Settlement Contribution from Later Insurer After Proper Policy Period Is Determined
Policy Provision Requiring Insurer’s Consent to Incur Clean-Up Costs Not Void Against Public Policy
No Coverage Where Attorneys’ Alleged Malpractice Occurred Prior to Retroactive Date
Lawyer Could Only “Reasonably Expect” Claim By Former Client—Not Her Family Members
Duty to Defend Does Not Encompass Affirmative Claims
No Coverage for Prosecuting an Affirmative Counterclaim
Claimant Has No Right to Policy Proceeds as Judgment Creditor of Insured Who Defaulted in Underlying Action
Sublimit for Misappropriation of Funds Applied to Claim Based on Employee’s Scheme Approving Fraudulent Settlement Claims
Excess Carrier’s Unrestricted Payment to Primary Carrier Creates Doubt as to Whether Primary Policy Was Exhausted
New York Court Requires Insurer that Issued Duty to Defend Policies to Advance Defense Costs During Coverage Litigation, but Insurer that Issued Duty to Advance Policies Has No Such Obligation
Policyholder Entitled to Hire Multiple Law Firms to Handle Underlying Suit as Long as Reasonable and Necessary for the Defense
Self-Insurance Policy Considered Primary Insurance Due to Pro Rata Other Insurance Clause
Umbrella Policies Triggered Even When Underlying Policies Exhausted by Payment of Damages Not Covered by Umbrella Policies
Co-Insurers Share Indemnity Obligations Where Policies Cover Same Loss
A-Side DIC D&O Policy Is Excess to Primary D&O Policy
Policy Language Prohibits Insurer from Recouping Defense Costs Advanced for Non-Covered Claim
Insured Cannot “Fill the Gap” to Exhaust Limits of Underlying Policy
New York Court Rejects “Gap-Filling”
Right to Independent Counsel Triggered By Possibility of Excess Judgment, Even Where Insurer Did Not Reserve Rights
Policy with More Specific “Other Insurance” Provision Trumps Policy with More General Provision
Broad Allegations in Complaint Against Investment Adviser Trigger Duty to Defend
Wiley Executive Summary

Sign up for updates

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.