The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that coverage for a retaliation claim under a claims-made directors and officers, employment practices, and fiduciary liability insurance policy was not barred by the insured’s failure to disclose a prior False Claims Act investigation on the application. SHH Holdings v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7385384 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2020).
Continue Reading Disclosure of False Claims Act Investigation Not Required by Policy Application Questions

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that an ERISA exclusion in two E&O policies barred coverage for a lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Labor alleging ERISA violations in connection with an employee stock ownership program (ESOP) stock purchase.  Gemini Ins. Co. v. Potts, 2020 WL 4000977 (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2020).

Continue Reading ERISA Exclusion in E&O Policies Bars Coverage for Suit Filed by the Department of Labor

Applying Ohio law, a federal district court has held that misrepresentations in an application warranty statement regarding three unreported lawsuits filed against the insured during the initial policy period rendered a renewed claims-made and reported policy void ab initioCertain Underwriters at Lloyds London Subscribing to Policy No.  HMPL 18-0164 & HMPL 17-0158 v. KG Admin. Servs., Inc., 2019 WL 6770061 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2019).  The court also held that, because the claims were not reported during the initial policy period, the insurer did not have any coverage obligations under the initial policy.

Continue Reading Concealment of Pending Lawsuits in Renewal Application Voids Policy

Applying Ohio law, an Ohio appellate court has held that renewal of a claims-made policy does not extend the time by which an insured may report a claim.  ISCO Indus., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6353709 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2019).  The court further held that the “notice prejudice” rule does not apply because coverage under a claims-made policy is generally restricted to claims made and reported during the policy period.

Continue Reading No Coverage for Claim Made During Initial Policy Period but Reported During Renewal Policy Period

The Ohio Court of Appeals has held that an “of counsel” attorney was an “Insured Person” under his former law firm’s professional liability policy for purposes of a malpractice action involving allegations that occurred both before and after the attorney worked at the firm.  Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P. v. Miller Goler Faeges Lapine, L.L.P., 2019 WL 2319296 (Ohio Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

Continue Reading Former Of Counsel Is Still “Insured Person” After Leaving Law Firm

An Ohio federal court has held that attorneys’ fees awarded under a fee-shifting provision contained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) do not constitute covered “damages” under an insurance policy.  Wesco Ins. Co. v. Roderick Linton Belfance LLP, 2018 WL 4510093 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2018).

Continue Reading Attorneys’ Fees Awarded Pursuant to Statute Are Not “Damages”

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has held that a bodily injury exclusion did not preclude coverage for a wrongful death suit, reasoning that the death did not cause the alleged wrongful conduct and therefore did not “arise out of” it.  Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 312 F. Supp. 3d 639 (N.D. Ohio 2018).  The court also held that the assault at issue was not “discovered” for purposes of triggering coverage until the underlying claimants learned of the alleged wrongful conduct at issue.

Continue Reading Bodily Injury Exclusion Inapplicable to Wrongful Death Suit

An Ohio federal district court has held that a specific litigation exclusion concerning a lawsuit brought by a state attorney general alleging that the insured oversupplied “pill mills” barred coverage for a show cause order the insured later received from a federal law enforcement agency concerning some of the same alleged misconduct.  Miami-Luken, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3424448 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2018).

Continue Reading Specific Litigation Exclusion Bars Coverage for Separate Proceeding Involving Same Conduct in Allegedly Oversupplying “Pill Mills”

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio and New York law, has held that a jury verdict determining that an insured participated in a civil conspiracy to make false statements about competitors incorporated a finding that the statements were intentional and “dishonest” within the meaning of a professional liability policy exclusion.  Evanston Ins. Co. v. Certified Steel Stud Ass’n, 2018 WL 1562016 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2018).

Continue Reading Civil Conspiracy Triggers Dishonesty Exclusion

The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed that an insurer owed no duty to defend under an employment practices liability policy where a lawsuit was brought by employees of the insured who were also former partners and shareholders, and the suit was premised solely on the employees’ rights as former partners and shareholders.  Orthopedic & Neurological Consultants, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2018 WL 460738 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Continue Reading Pleading in Suit Between Medical Practice Partners Fails to Trigger Duty to Defend Under Employment Practices Liability Policy