By Edward R. Brown on Posted in Bankruptcy,Notice of ClaimThe United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of a claim under a claims-made policy barred coverage for that suit. Frazier v. Exide Techs., No. 17-2399, 2018 WL 2727396 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018).… Continue Reading
By Danielle Barondess on Posted in “Claim”Applying Pennsylvania law, a federal district court has held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a judgment for excessive legal fees because a court-ordered letter predating the policy period and previewing objections to the insured law firm’s fees was a “claim” first made prior to the policy’s inception. Allied World Ins.… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in LossThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that where an occurrence-based crime policy covers only losses discovered “during the Policy Period,” no coverage is available for losses discovered after the policy period concluded, despite the fact that a prior policy issued to the insured contained a discovery period extending… Continue Reading
By on Posted in “Claim”,Wrongful ActThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a former board member of a company is not entitled to coverage when the company was dismissed with prejudice from the underlying action. Palmer v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2017 WL 5571051 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2017).… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in PremiumsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a professional liability insurer has no duty to defend an insured insurance agency against a claim seeking return of premium payments pursuant to an exclusion in the policy barring coverage for any claim to recover premiums. TRI-ARC Fin.… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in “Claim”The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, applying Pennsylvania law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that coverage under a claims-made-and-reported policy is unavailable where an insured is not served with the lawsuit during the policy period or extended reporting period. Wolf v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2016 Phila. Ct. Com.… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Reasonable expectations,Retroactive DateThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that a lawyer was not entitled to insurance coverage because he could not reasonably expect that his malpractice policy would provide coverage for acts occurring three months prior to the effective and retroactive date of the policy. Downey v. First Indemnity Ins.,… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Notice of ClaimThe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that an insured’s failure to provide sufficient notice of a potential claim during the policy period precluded coverage under its claims-made policy. University of Pittsburgh v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2016 WL 4991622 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016).… Continue Reading
By Jessica N. Gallinaro on Posted in Related Claims and associated exclusionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that a lawyer’s professional liability policy’s per-claim limit of liability, rather than its aggregate limit of liability, applied to an underlying lawsuit because the suit’s multiple causes of action were all related and therefore constituted a single claim under the policy. Westport Ins.… Continue Reading
By Margaret Thomas on Posted in Notice of ClaimApplying Pennsylvania law, a federal district court has held that an insured’s notice of potential claim was insufficiently detailed to trigger coverage under a claims-made policy. University of Pittsburgh v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2016 WL 3963104 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2016).… Continue Reading
By Emily S. Hart on Posted in Allocation,Cooperation,Other: Trademark Exclusion,Related Claims and associated exclusionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a telephone marketing scam and an internet false advertising scam were not interrelated wrongful acts precluding coverage because the conduct behind the alleged wrongful acts was different. Connect America Holdings, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1254073… Continue Reading
