The United States District Court for the District of Utah has held that an errors and omissions policy’s “options trading” exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims resulting from an insured investment company’s high-risk trade.  Allegis Invest. Servs., LLC v. Arthur Gallagher & Co., 2019 WL 1002364 (D. Utah Mar. 1, 2019).

Continue Reading

A Utah federal district court has held that claims based on similar acts of wrongdoing were barred by a prior notice exclusion despite geographic differences among the putative class definitions.  Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Monavie, Inc., 2019 WL 1227930 (D. Utah Mar. 5, 2019).  The court also ruled that the insurer was entitled to recoup defense costs incurred in connection with the non-covered claims.

Continue Reading

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Utah law, has held that no coverage exists for a lawsuit filed against an insured where an SEC investigation and proceeding conducted prior to the policy’s inception and the lawsuit both alleged a scheme of defrauding investors over a period of several years by means of “related” misconduct under the policy’s Interrelated Wrongful Acts provision.  Morden v. XL Specialty Ins., 2018 WL 4292227 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018).
Continue Reading

Applying 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. Co. v. Expert Group Int’l Inc., 2017 WL 2131368 (D. Colo. May 17, 2017).

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court of Utah has affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that language regarding the scope of coverage under a real estate brokerage company’s insurance policy encompassed only services performed for compensation through a traditional real estate commission.  Compton v. Houston Cas. Co., 2017 WL 1101816 (Utah Mar. 23, 2017).

Continue Reading

A federal appellate court, applying Utah law, has held that an insured v. insured exclusion did not preclude a duty to defend where one insured entity had changed its name and disaffiliated from the other insured entity. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ma’afu, 2016 WL 3997212 (10th Cir. July 21, 2016). The court also held that the insurer had to defend the suit notwithstanding uncertainty over whether the capacity provisions in the policy and the personal profit exclusion would ultimately operate to preclude a duty to defend.
Continue Reading