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 Danielle Barondess 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 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
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsApplying California and Virginia law, a federal district court has held that two class action lawsuits alleging similar wrongful conduct, but brought by different classes for different class periods, were nonetheless related and constituted a single claim. Northrop Grumman Corp. v. AXIS Reinsurance Co., 2018 WL 5314918 (D. Del. Oct. 26, 2018).… Continue Reading
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
