By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in UncategorizedApplying Florida law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its individual insureds because an exclusion for claims arising from the purchase or sale of securities barred coverage. Colorado Boxed Beef Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2019 WL 77376 (M. D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2018).… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Cyber Policies and Issues,Professional ServicesA Florida federal district court has ruled that a claim asserting that an insured’s negligent data security practices led to a payment card breach did not trigger personal injury coverage under a CGL policy. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Rosen Millennium, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-540-Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018). The court… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusions,Wrongful ActThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has affirmed a district court’s holding that multiple lawsuits filed against the insured over a fifteen-year period involving a “continuing pattern of anticompetitive behavior” constitute claims “related logically, causally or in any other way.” Health First, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp.,… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in “Claim”,Notice of ClaimThe United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has held that an errors and omissions policy does not provide coverage for a criminal investigation of an insured individual where the affidavit identifying the individual as a target of the investigation was not unsealed or reported to the insurer until after the policy’s… Continue Reading
By Ashley-Anne L. Criss on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusions,Wrongful ActThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a prior acts exclusion in a directors and officers liability policy does not bar coverage for a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) against a failed bank, because the wrongful acts at issue occurred after the prior acts date and… Continue Reading
By Nicole Audet Richardson on Posted in Loss,Personal Profit/Advantage exclusion,Public Policy prohibition on insuranceThe United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has denied an insured’s request for indemnity from its insurer for the amount owed under a settlement agreement with the state of Florida over grand theft charges against the insured. The court held that, under Florida law, the settlement does not constitute covered “Loss”… Continue Reading
By Leland H. Jones, IV on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsIn a win for an insurer represented by Wiley Rein, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that eleven claims by patients against a pharmacy and pharmacist for negligently repackaging two preservative-free drugs for injections by the same doctor to treat the same condition constituted “related claims.” … Continue Reading
By Karen L. Toto on Posted in Prior Knowledge/Warranty ExclusionApplying Florida law, a federal district court has held that a prior knowledge exclusion bars coverage for a claim against an insured attorney where the attorney knew, prior to applying for the policy, that he had failed to meet his client’s expectations for the representation. David R. Farbstein, P.A. v. Westport Ins. Co., 2017 WL… Continue Reading
By Nicole Audet Richardson on Posted in Professional ServicesThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract and bad faith case against two insurers based on the policies’ professional services exclusion, finding that the exclusion clearly created joint, not several, obligations. Stettin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2017 WL… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in UncategorizedThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that a prior acts exclusion barred coverage under a directors and officers liability policy for claims brought against insured persons for alleged fraudulent transfers, even though the transfers occurred within the policy period. Zucker v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2017… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Dishonesty Exclusion,Personal Profit/Advantage exclusion,Professional ServicesApplying Colorado law, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has held that allegations of collusion to fix wages in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act do not fall within the scope of professional liability coverage for “counseling” services because “counseling” does not include an alleged agreement to fix wages. Colony Ins.… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Consent to settle/incur defense costs,Defense CostsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that a thirty-day statutory deadline to deny coverage did not apply to an insurer’s refusal to reimburse the insured for its pre-tender defense costs because this refusal did not constitute a “coverage defense” within the meaning of the statute. Embroidme.com,… Continue Reading
By Leland H. Jones, IV on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsIn a win for an insurer represented by Wiley Rein, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that eleven claims by patients against a pharmacy and pharmacist for negligently repackaging two preservative-free drugs for injections by the same doctor to treat the same condition constituted “related… Continue Reading
By Leland H. Jones, IV on Posted in Cyber Policies and IssuesIn another win for an insurer represented by Wiley Rein, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying New Jersey and Florida law, has held that the quality of services exclusion in a technology errors and omissions policy barred coverage for a claim that the insured negligently misrepresented the safety and… Continue Reading
By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bad faith/duty to settle,Consent to settle/incur defense costsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend did not render it liable for a consent judgment where the insured did not consider the reasonableness of the settlement amount. Sidman v. Travelers Cas. & Sur., 2016 WL 6803034 (11th… Continue Reading
By on Posted in “Claim”The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that a professional liability insurer was not obligated to contribute to defense costs where it received a letter during its policy period requesting insurance information pursuant to Florida statute, and a lawsuit regarding the incident discussed in the letter… Continue Reading
By Matthew W. Beato on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsA Florida federal court has held that a set of claims must be deemed first made at the time of the first such related claim in 2008, prior to the relevant policy period, notwithstanding the fact that a prior and pending litigation exclusion in the policies only excluded coverage for lawsuits brought prior to 2003.… Continue Reading
By on Posted in SubrogationThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that an insurer did not breach its duty to defend or indemnify an insured where the insured’s defense and settlement costs were paid by its contractual indemnitor. MapleWood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2016 WL 3553212 (11th Cir.… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Discovery IssuesThe United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying federal law, has denied a motion to compel an insurer to produce its claims file, underwriting file, and claims handling protocols in coverage litigation, holding that such documents are not relevant in the absence of bad faith allegations. Koster v. Landmark Am. Ins.… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Insured v. Insured ExclusionThe District Court of Appeal of Florida has held that an insured v. insured exclusion barred coverage for an action brought by a former director of the insured company against the company’s CEO. Durant v. James, 2016 WL 1295100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2016).… Continue Reading
By Charlie Lemley on Posted in “Claim”,Bad faith/duty to settle“The most troubling claims of bad faith in Florida tend to involve allegations that the insurer failed to settle a claim against its insured when a reasonably prudent insurer who was acting in the best interest of the insured would have done so,” Charlie Lemley, partner in Wiley Rein’s Insurance Practice. I recently had the opportunity… Continue Reading
