Given the opposing experts' contradictory reports, the court denied both the insured and insurer's motions for summary judgment regarding coverage for a pipe leak. Pronti v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222306 (W.D. N. Y. Dec. 9, 2022).

    The insured had a swimming poll and spa, which functioned

      Unknowingly making an illegal sale of wheat seed to an undercover investigator was not an intentional act barring coverage. Parker v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15273 (D. Kansas Nov. 16, 2015). 

       Parker was the co-owner of D&B Parker Farms, LLC. He

   The Seventh Circuit found that the insured's illegal recording of conversations with customers did not constitute a publication under the insured's liability policy. Defender Security Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17116 (7th Cir. Sept. 29, 2015).

   A class action complaint was filed in California, alleging that Defender

   The Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Designated Premises Endorsement provided coverage for injury and damage that occurred away from a listed location if the injury or damage arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the designated premises. C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemn. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS

   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). 

   St. Bernard's policies

   The California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013).

   Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a

   The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling and held that the insurer had a duty to defend a "personal injury" and/or "advertising injury" suit. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., 2012 Cal. Ct. App. LEXIS 807 (Cal. Ct. App. July 13, 2012).

   A clothing

   The insured, Dish Network Corporation, was sued for patent infringement by Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (RAKTL). See Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20955 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2011). RAKTL alleged Dish infringed on twenty-three patents. The underlying complaint provided little information about how Dish