The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has found no coverage under a director and officers liability policy for a claim alleging the fraudulent conveyance of a company because it was “related to” a claim challenging the conveyance made prior to the policy period.  See Alexbay LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2020 WL 5501233 (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 2020).  The court declined to decide whether a specific litigation exclusion also barred coverage.

Continue Reading D&O Claim Deemed Related to Prior Suit Brought by Different Parties

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that fact issues remain with regard to whether the insured reasonably could have expected a pre-policy period enforcement notice to give rise to claim.  Wallingford Grp., LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4464629 (D. Conn. May 11, 2020).

Continue Reading Fact Issues Preclude Summary Judgment on Prior Knowledge Exclusion

In a win for Wiley Rein’s client, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying Connecticut law, has held that no coverage is available for a lawsuit seeking recovery of disputed legal fees because the relief sought does not constitute covered “damages” and because the insured was not performing “legal services.”  Continental Cas. Co. v. Parnoff, 2019 WL 6999867 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019).

Continue Reading No Coverage for Lawsuit Seeking Recovery of Disputed Legal Fees

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying Connecticut law, has concluded that a fraud exclusion is not triggered where an insured unwittingly transferred a client’s funds to third-party fraudulent actors based on spoofed emails, because the fraudulent acts were not committed by the insured.  SS&C Techs. Holdings, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-7859 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2019).

Continue Reading Fraud Exclusion Inapplicable Where Insured Unwittingly Transferred Funds to Fraudsters

In a win for Wiley Rein’s client, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the continuing course of conduct doctrine could not save the untimely claims of an insurer brought against an insurance adjuster.  See Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Associates, LLC, Case No. SC 20130 (Conn. Apr. 16, 2019).  On a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine did not toll the applicable three-year statute of repose because the adjuster’s duties to the insurer ended when the adjuster closed its file more than six years before the insurer’s lawsuit.

Continue Reading Connecticut Supreme Court Answers Certified Question in Favor of Insurance Adjuster, Holding That Continuing Course of Conduct Doctrine Did Not Toll Statute of Repose

In a win for Wiley Rein’s client, a federal district court applying Connecticut law has held that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify an attorney in a lawsuit that arose out of a fee dispute and did not seek any covered relief.  Continental Cas. Co. v. Parnoff, 2018 WL 4356746 (D. Conn. Sept. 12, 2018).

Continue Reading Lawsuit Arising Out of Attorney-Client Fee Dispute Did Not Seek “Damages”

Applying Connecticut law, a Connecticut state trial court has held that no coverage exists under a real estate errors and omissions policy for a lawsuit brought by property investors against two real estate professionals arising from the purported mismanagement of property investment companies.  Sarfaty v. United States Liab. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3060110 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 25, 2018).

Continue Reading Property Management and Financial Interest Exclusions Bar Coverage for Real Estate Professionals

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insured, holding that an underlying complaint alleged at least one act that could “possibly” fall within the policy’s definition of “wrongful acts,” triggering a duty to defend.  Fernandez v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 923910 (D. Conn. March 8, 2017).

Continue Reading Insurer Had Duty to Defend Where at Least One Allegation “Possibly” Constituted a Wrongful Act

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that an insured’s untimely notice of a claim precluded coverage under a claims-made policy because it prejudiced the insurer as required by Connecticut law.  Zahoruiko v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 776645 (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2017).

Continue Reading Court Finds Late Notice of Claim Prejudiced Insurer

A federal district court in Connecticut has granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim by an accounting firm, holding that the firm’s professional liability policy’s exclusion for theft, misappropriation, commingling, or conversion of funds precluded coverage for a claim against the insured for completing fraudulently requested transfers of funds.  Accounting Resources, Inc. v. Hiscox, Inc., 2016 WL 5844465 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2016).  The court rejected the insured’s argument that the exclusion applied only to misappropriation or conversion by the insured or its employees.

Continue Reading Misappropriation of Funds Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Accounting Firm’s Erroneous Transfer of Client Funds to Third-Party Fraudsters