June 2011

   The insurer's duty to defend the insured against claims arising from contamination of the commercial rice supply by mixing it with genetically modified ("GM") rice was at stake in Riceland Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61381 (E.D. Ark. June 8, 2011).

   Riceland processed and marketed rice and other

   At issue was whether damage caused by a crane landing on a building during a tropical storm was covered as an ensuing loss.  See Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Chabad Lubavitch of Greater Ft. Lauderdale, Inc., 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8403 (Fla. Ct. App. June 8, 2011).

   The insured had two policies

   The case involved another chapter in the long-standing coverage litigation in which the insured, Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, sought to enforce indemnity obligations against its insurers for thousands of suits filed because of asbestos exposure. See Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 2011 Cal. App.

   The insurer sought to avoid coverage for claims against its insured, a supplier of Chinese drywall. The court ruled, however that the exclusions relied upon by the insurer did not bar coverage. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Am. Building Materials, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52837 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011).

   The

   The Louisiana Supreme Court considered a certified question from the Fifth Circuit regarding the applicability of anti-assignment provisions in homeowners' policies. In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 2011 La. Lexis 1118 (La. May 10, 2011).

The Fifth Circuit asked,

Does an anti-assignment clause in a homeowner's insurance policy, which by its plain terms

   Since late last week, we have heard rumors that HB 924 was signed by the Governor.  Before today, there was no confirmation of this on either the Legislature's or the Governor's websites. 

   As you recall, HB 924 states that "occurrence" in a liability policy "shall be construed in accordance with the law as it existed

   We previously posted here and here on decisions by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal in Ahn v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. and Kim v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.  As you recall, the issue in the two cases was whether the insured could seek administrative review when the insurer denied coverage or was the

  The insured's request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in 1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).

   In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing