Applying Wisconsin law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that a breach of contract exclusion did not apply to bar coverage for a claim because it had the effect of rendering the insured’s errors and omissions professional liability coverage illusory.  Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. DVO, Inc., 2019 WL 4594229 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019).

Continue Reading

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin has held that the “location endorsement” in a professional liability policy precluded coverage for a medical negligence claim where the insured’s liability was “connected with” professional services performed outside the covered territory.  Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4018339 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying Wisconsin law, a federal district court has held that an insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds because exclusions for claims arising from violations of securities laws or consumer protection laws, and from the failure of investments to perform as desired, barred coverage.  Hanover Ins. Co. v. BMOC, Inc., 2019 WL 949215 (W. D. Wis. Feb. 27, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying Wisconsin law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has held that a contract exclusion in a multi-line liability policy barred coverage for an action solely alleging breach of contract.  Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc., 2018 WL 3304631 (E.D. Wisc. Jul. 5, 2018).  The court also held that the broad language in the exclusion did not render coverage “illusory” such that the reformation of the policy would be warranted.

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has held that a professional liability policy issued to an insured for his conduct as a trustee of two trusts afforded no coverage for a series of claims arising out of the trustee’s alleged conduct as a director or officer of businesses owned by the trusts. Marks v. Houston Cas. Co., 2016 WL 3545848 (Wis. June 30, 2016).
Continue Reading