September 2010

   An exclusion under a CGL policy for bodily injury arising out of automobile accidents prevented coverage when an employee was at fault.  See Sprinkles v. Assoc. Indemn. Corp., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1532 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2010).

   Bibinz, an employee of Sinco, caused the accident, killing the deceased.  The deceased's family

   An exclusion for claims arising from roofing barred coverage when the underlying plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold.  See Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Lavigne, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17675 (1st Cir. Aug. 24, 2010).

   Michael Daigle was hired to put a new roof on an apartment building and to seal some

   The insured had a commercial property policy with Lexington.  Coverage included $25 million in losses for business interruption.  See Consolidated Co. Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17146 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010).  

   Hurricane Katrina damaged the insured's property and equipment.  The insured was able, however, to resume partial operations ten days

   When the insured was sued for allegedly engaging in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, a defense was sought from the insurer.  See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17098 (10th Cir. Aug. 16, 2010).  Once it was determined there was no duty to defend, was the insurer entitled

   Although the insurer contended the Texas Supreme Court had previously decided that mold was never covered under a homeowner's policy, the Court found coverage for mold damage to personal property in State Farm Lloyds v. Page, 2010 Tex. LEXIS 415 (Tex. June 22, 2010).

   The insured discovered mold and water damage to

   Sorting out whether the contractor had coverage for alleged construction defects under the subcontractor's policies was the issue in Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Dormitory Auth., State of New York, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79024 (S.D. N.Y. July 30, 2010).

   Trataros Construction, Inc. was the general contractor on the project.  Trataros contracted

   The Fifth Circuit considered whether the district court properly determined that an excess policy covered flood, but that coverage was limited under the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause (post on district court's prior decision here).  The appellate court reversed in part and remanded.  Stewart Enter., Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16555(5th

   When sued by its insured, the health insurer sought to compel arbitration as part of the procedures under its policy for contesting a denial of coverage.  In an opinion authored by newly seated Judge Ginoza, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the motion to compel because the insured's lawsuit was based on tort, not coverage