July 2009

   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's conclusion that the insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify an additional insured after sued by a person allegedly injured in the insured's casino when falling off a stool.  See Barden Mississippi Gaming LLC v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 08-60521, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS

    No Hawai`i appellate court has ever interpreted the meaning of the CGL policy's pollution exclusion.  The Ninth Circuit recently issued an Order certifying a question to the the Hawai`i Supreme Court regarding its interpretation of the pollution exclusion.  See Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 08-15369 (9th Cir. July 15, 2009) [here

   The Insurance Coverage Group of the Hawai`i State Bar Association recently met with Hawai`i Insurance Commissioner, J. P. Schmidt.  The Commissioner gave his insight on the state of the Insurance industry on both the mainland and in Hawai`i.

   At the national level, the Commissioner reported there are several bills before Congress to federalize the insurance

    Acknowledging that the insured's cotton was damaged by an occurrence, the Eighth Circuit nonetheless affirmed the district court's denial of coverage based upon an exclusion.  See Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DG&D Co., Inc., No. 08-2699, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14236 (8th Cir. July 1, 2009).

    The insured operated a cotton gin.  After delivering 50,000

    The New York Court of Appeals considered whether a Landlord was an additional insured under a policy obtained by the Tenant.  See Kassis v. The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., No. 117 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 25, 2009). 

    The Landlord leased property to the insured, who, pursuant to the lease, obtained a commercial general liability insurance

    Two issues were presented in Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50156 (E.D. La. June 15 2009).  First, was the excess carrier's following form policy was bound by the primary carrier's exception to the flood exclusion?  Second, was the primary policy's anti-concurrent causation clause applicable?

    The insured owed various cemeteries, funeral