The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that two exclusions in a D&O policy applicable to claims by employees and for Fair Labor Standards Act violations barred coverage for a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit. U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3265238 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020).
Continue Reading EPL Exclusions in D&O Policy Barred Coverage for Wage-and-Hour Class Action
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that an insurer did not act in bad faith by failing to defend its insureds and settle a claim where there was a “genuine issue” as to the insurer’s liability. Sharp v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2020 WL 2569694 (9th Cir. May 21, 2020). However, the court concluded that the insurer’s denial of coverage was incorrect because various policy exclusions requiring malice and California Insurance Code Section 533 did not apply to bar coverage for the insureds’ alleged negligent mishandling of fiduciary funds.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Alleged Misappropriation of Client Funds Triggers E&O Coverage, But No Bad Faith Where Insurer’s Denial Was Reasonable
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that a fiduciary liability policy potentially provided coverage for a complaint alleging errors in the administration of an employee benefits program. Erickson-Hall Constr. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1744338 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2020).
Continue Reading Alleged Errors In Employee Benefits Administration Potentially Trigger Fiduciary Liability Policy
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying California and Virginia law, has found that wrongful acts alleged in two ERISA class actions comprising different class periods are causally and logically related. Northrop Grumman Corp. v. AXIS Reinsurance Co., 2020 WL 1933264 (3rd Cir. Apr. 22, 2020).
Continue Reading Class Actions Comprising Different Class Periods Causally and Logically Related
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that an insurer is not required to show prejudice to deny coverage under a claims-made-and-reported policy based on an insured’s late notice. Euraupair Int’l, Inc. v. Ironshore Spec. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6817593 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).
Continue Reading Notice Prejudice Rule Not Applicable to Claims-Made-And-Reported Policies
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 California law, a federal district court has rejected an insured law firm’s argument that the terms “may” and “might” as used in connection with an application question regarding knowledge of potential claims are ambiguous and unenforceable. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Warner, 2019 WL 6493945 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019).
Continue Reading “May” and “Might” are Sufficiently Clear and Unambiguous to Support Rescission Claim
The California Court of Appeal, applying California law, has held that the undefined term “wage and hour . . . law” in a wage and
Continue Reading Exclusion for Wage and Hour Law Claims Limited to Laws Concerning Duration Worked or Remuneration Received in Exchange for Work
In 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 v WorldOne Presents, LLC, 2019 WL 4747708 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019).
Continue Reading Assault and Battery Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Action Arising from Stabbing at Concert
The 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 Indem. & Liab. Co., 2019 WL 4462613 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019).
Continue Reading No Duty to Defend Claims Brought by California Attorney General Under Unfair Competition or False Advertising Laws