By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Professional ServicesApplying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a professional services exclusion in a D&O policy barred coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act. Hotchalk, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2018 WL 2473474 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018).… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionIn a win for Wiley Rein’s client, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that a prior acts exclusion in a management liability policy bars coverage for a securities lawsuit brought by shareholders alleging misrepresentations before the prior acts date and continuing after the prior acts date. Jayhawk Private… Continue Reading
By Danielle Barondess on Posted in Public Policy prohibition on insuranceThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 533 of the California Insurance Code does not bar coverage for claims brought under the California False Claims Act (the “CFCA”). Office Depot, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 WL 2296036 (9th Cir. May 21, 2018).… Continue Reading
By Bonnie Thompson on Posted in Professional ServicesA California intermediate court of appeals, applying California law, has held that a life insurance agents E&O policy did not cover a suit by a financial advisor’s clients regarding advice provided to the clients to limit their tax liability. Lindsey Fin., Inc. v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 2111979 (Cal. Ct. App. May 8,… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Excess insurance/exhaustionThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a New York choice of law provision in a policy issued by an international insurer is enforceable and that, under either New York or California law, an excess policy was not triggered when the underlying policy limits were not exhausted through payments… Continue Reading
By Ashley E. Eiler on Posted in Regulatory ExclusionApplying California law, a federal district court has held that a disciplinary proceeding initiated by a state insurance department against an insured life insurance agent is unambiguously subject to a regulatory action sublimit of liability. Cerf v. Cont’l Cas. Co., Case No. 17-cv-07993-DSF-SS (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2018). Wiley Rein represented the insurer in this… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in “Claim”,Defense CostsThe United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insurer owed no duty to reimburse the insured’s costs of responding to a governmental investigation. Millennium Labs., Inc. v. Allied World Assurance Co., Inc., 2018 WL 1179601 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). While the court held that… Continue Reading
By Hume Ross on Posted in Dishonesty ExclusionApplying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal district court decision which held that a deceptive business practices exclusion in an errors and omissions policy did not bar coverage for a suit alleging the insured real estate broker received kickbacks, because two of the causes of action… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Wrongful ActThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that an employment practices liability insurer had a duty to defend a class action complaint alleging various California Labor Code violations based on the presence of potentially covered allegations of discrimination and harassment. PHP Ins. Serv., Inc. et al. v. Greenwich Ins. Co.,… Continue Reading
By Matthew W. Beato on Posted in RescissionApplying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that an insurer was entitled to rescind a directors and officers liability insurance policy where the insured failed to disclose a pending investigation in response to an application question. Western World Ins. Co. v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2018 WL 259309… Continue Reading
By Danielle Barondess on Posted in Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionThe California Court of Appeal has held that a prior knowledge condition barred coverage for a claim brought against an insured because the insured was warned prior to the policy’s inception that it would face a claim for professional negligence. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 2017 WL 5590076 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017).… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Breach of Contract – coverage for amounts due pursuant to contract, exclusionsApplying California law, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that an insurer owed no coverage for an underlying lawsuit because the suit sought amounts that fell completely within a carveout from the definition of “damages” for fines and amounts imposed by statute. Local Initiative Health Auth. for Los… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settleA California federal district court has held that an insured did not suffer damages sufficient to support a bad faith claim for failure to indemnify because another excess insurer during a prior policy year had paid for the settlement. Genesis Ins. Co. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., No. 2017 WL 4642443 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16,… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Insured v. Insured Exclusion,Wrongful ActThe United States District Court for the Northern District of California has found that an insurer was not obligated to cover an insured’s settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit because the failure to pay wages was not a “wrongful act” under the policy. W.G. Hall, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2017… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Exclusion lead-in language (Arising out of),Professional ServicesA California appellate court has held that a pipeline owner’s insurer is not entitled to reimbursement of defense costs and settlement payments from the insurer for the staffing agency that supplied personnel to the pipeline because the professional services exclusion in the staffing agency’s policy unambiguously barred coverage. Energy Ins. Mut. Ltd. v. ACE American… Continue Reading
By Bonnie Thompson on Posted in Prior Knowledge/Warranty Exclusion,RescissionA California federal district court, applying California law, has held that an insurer was entitled to summary judgment that it had no duty to defend a suit against its insured because the insured failed to disclose a related claim in its application, and the claim therefore predated the policy period. Kelly v. Starr Indem. &… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Excess insurance/exhaustion,Loss,Wrongful ActThe United States District Court for the Northern District of California has denied an insured’s motion to dismiss an umbrella insurer’s declaratory judgment action. Great American Ins. Co. v. Quintana Homeowners Ass’n., 2017 WL 3453394 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017). The insurer alleged that it had no duty to defend or indemnify after exhaustion of… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in UncategorizedThe Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an invasion of privacy exclusion in a D&O policy barred coverage for a claim alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3613340 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).… Continue Reading
By Stewart Day on Posted in Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionApplying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that prior knowledge of wrongful acts that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a claim possessed by an insured who is not seeking coverage may bar coverage for other insureds under the same policy. Woo v. Scottsdale Ins.… Continue Reading
By Alexander Merritt on Posted in Insured v. Insured ExclusionThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insured v. insured exclusion in a bank’s insurance policy bars coverage for a claim brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its capacity as a receiver of the insured bank. Hawker v. Doak, 2017 WL 1147131… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Cyber Policies and IssuesThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that a crime policy did not afford coverage for a loss caused by an insured’s initiation of wire transfers based on fraudulent email instructions. Taylor & Lieberman v. Federal Ins. Co., 2017 WL 929211 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) .… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Dishonesty ExclusionThe California Court of Appeal has held that an exclusion requiring repayment to the insurer upon a “final determination” of the insured’s culpability applies only after the insured’s direct appeals have been exhausted, and therefore the insurer was obligated to pay the insured’s litigation expenses in an appeal of the underlying litigation. Stein v. AXIS… Continue Reading
By Nicole Audet Richardson on Posted in Dishonesty ExclusionThe United States District Court for the Northern District of California has held that a deceptive practices exclusion contained in an errors and omissions policy issued to a real estate brokerage did not bar coverage for a suit alleging the brokerage engaged in a kickback scheme with a vendor because two causes of action asserted… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Consent to settle/incur defense costsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insured breached the consent-to-settle provision of its professional liability insurance policy by executing a settlement term sheet prior to seeking or obtaining the consent of its insurer and therefore was not entitled to coverage under the policy. Onewest… Continue Reading
