By Emily S. Hart on Posted in UncategorizedThe California Court of Appeal, applying California law, has held that the undefined term “wage and hour . . . law” in a wage and hour exclusion is limited to laws “concerning duration worked and/or remuneration received in exchange for work.” S. Cal. Pizza Co., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy… Continue Reading
By Chiara Tondi Resta on Posted in Assault & Battery ExclusionIn a win for Wiley Rein’s client, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California applied an assault and battery exclusion to bar coverage for a negligence action arising from a stabbing that occurred at a concert promoted by the insured. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy No. EH7713140… Continue Reading
By Anna Schaffner on Posted in Duty to Defend,Right to ReimbursementThe United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that California Insurance Code Section 533.5 precludes a duty to defend any claim brought by the California Attorney General under the Unfair Competition Law or False Advertising Law for the recovery of a fine, penalty, or restitution. Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Defense Costs,Exclusions,Wage and Hour CoverageApplying California law, a federal district court has held that a wage and hour endorsement limited the coverage available for two class action lawsuits to $25,000 in defense costs. Houston Cas. Co v. Great American Chicken Corp., Inc., 2019 WL 3886484 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019).… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in “Claim”,Notice of Claim,Related Claims and associated exclusionsIn a win for Wiley Rein’s client, a California state court has held that an insurer correctly denied coverage under a D&O policy on the basis that the operative “claim” was made before the policy period. CNEX Labs, Inc. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 18-CV-334461 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.… Continue Reading
By Chiara Tondi Resta on Posted in Notice of Claim,Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionApplying California law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that an insurer properly denied coverage under consecutive claims-made-and-reported policies based on the insured’s failure to provide timely notice of a claim and the insured’s failure to disclose the pending claim in its application for coverage. US HF Cellular Commc’ns.,… Continue Reading
By Sara Dunton on Posted in Breach of Contract,Related Claims and associated exclusions,Wrongful ActThe United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that there is no coverage for a False Claims Act settlement where the insured company’s alleged wrongful acts took place outside the policy period and were independently barred from coverage by a contract exclusion, prior acts exclusion and regulatory… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in Allocation,Insured v. Insured Exclusion,Loss,Notice of ClaimThe United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer lacked adequate information to deny coverage under an insured vs. insured exclusion in a D&O policy. MJC Supply, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2019 WL 2372279 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2019). The court also held that… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has affirmed the district court’s holding that a specific matter exclusion bars coverage for a series of lawsuits involving the same parties as a lawsuit included in the policy’s definition of “Specific Matter” in that exclusion. Ocean Towers Hous. Corp. v. Evanston… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Defense Costs,Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionThe United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that an insured is entitled to independent counsel where an insurer’s coverage action turns on facts that overlap with facts that might establish an insured’s liability in the underlying lawsuit. Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Ou, 2019 WL 1950293… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, applying California law, held that two lawsuits against a real estate broker involving his dual representation of buyers and sellers in the same real estate transaction arose from the same wrongful act, such that the second suit was deemed a claim first made at the… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in “Claim”,Wrongful ActThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying California law, has ruled that a policy application did not require insureds to disclose a claim that did not assert any “wrongful acts.” Kelly v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 2019 WL 1895825 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2019).… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in Professional ServicesThe United States District Court for the Southern District of California has held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend a claim made against an insured arising out of the denial of an employee’s life insurance benefits because coverage was barred by an ERISA exclusion. By Referral Only, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas.… Continue Reading
By on Posted in Rescission,Wrongful ActApplying California law, a federal district court has held that an insurer was not obligated to cover a labor union’s defense costs and damages in a lawsuit brought by a former employee because the alleged wage and hour violations were not “wrongful employment practices” or “wrongful acts” under the policy. United Farm Workers of Am.… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in RescissionThe U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, held that a warranty exclusion barred coverage where a start-up company made material misrepresentations regarding contemplated acquisitions in its policy application. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. CSC Agility Platform, Inc., 2019 WL 1452910 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019). The court further held that… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Breach of Contract,Defense Costs,Wrongful ActThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has held that no coverage is available for a demand for payment in excess of agreed purchase orders based on an exclusion barring coverage for loss “as a result of” a claim “for any actual or alleged obligation under . .… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsApplying California law, a federal district court has held that an original and an amended complaint arising out of a series of related wrongful acts were deemed a single claim under an earlier policy, such that coverage was barred under a policy issued later. General Ins. Co. v. INB Ins. Servs. Corp., 2019 WL 1318252… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Breach of Contract,Wrongful ActThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, applying California law, has held that neither fiduciary nor employment benefits liability coverage applied to claims seeking benefits under an insured company’s employee benefits plan because the company’s liability arose, not from negligent acts or breaches of fiduciary duty, but from its contractual obligation to… Continue Reading
By Chiara Tondi Resta on Posted in Professional Services,Public Policy prohibition on insuranceThe Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insurer improperly failed to defend its insured in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the insured engaged in an ongoing mortgage modification fraud scheme, because one count in the lawsuit did not require willful conduct and therefore was not necessarily uninsurable under California Insurance Code… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Notice of ClaimThe United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that coverage is unavailable for a whistleblower action and subpoena noticed after the end of the reporting period of a claims-made policy. PAMC, Ltd. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 666726 (C.D. Cal. Feb.… Continue Reading
By Nathan Lovett on Posted in Defense CostsThe United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in full, finding that triable issues of fact remained regarding the insurer’s alleged failure to provide an immediate defense to the insured corporation and to assign separate counsel for an… Continue Reading
By on Posted in Exclusion lead-in language (Arising out of),Related Claims and associated exclusions,Wrongful ActApplying California law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has held that coverage is precluded under a claims-made D&O policy based on two exclusions: a specific circumstances exclusion and a prior notice exclusion. Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6591620 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018).… Continue Reading
By Jason P. Cronic on Posted in Corporate ConsiderationsIn an issue of first impression in California, a California appellate court has rejected a shareholder plaintiff’s effort to avoid enforcement of a Delaware company’s forum selection bylaw, despite the shareholder’s arguments that the bylaw was inconsistent with California law and was otherwise unreasonable given the manner and timing of its adoption. Drulias v. 1st… Continue Reading
By Anna Schaffner on Posted in Excess insurance/exhaustion,LossApplying California law, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that a follow-form excess insurer was not bound by the primary insurer’s decision to pay a settlement because the settlement constituted uninsurable disgorgement that did not trigger the excess insurer’s policy. Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No.… Continue Reading
