In a January decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court found no coverage under a CGL policy for construction defects. On rehearing and after considering numerous amici briefs, the court withdrew its initial opinion and determined there was coverage for progressive property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville

   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.

   In a prior post, we noted the Indiana Supreme Court held that the CGL policy covers damage to a home structure resulting from shoddy subcontractor work unless the subcontractor work was intentionally faulty.  See Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 935 N.E. 2d 160 (Ind. 2010).  In a subsequent construction defect

   A thoughtful opinion concerning the allocation of indemnity obligations between an insurance company and a policyholder was rendered in Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106275 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2010).

   At some point over the last several decades, an oil tank on the

   How long can an insurer wait after denying coverage before insisting upon an appraisal?  In Sanchez v. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. H-09-1736, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6295 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2010), waiting eleven months after a coverage dispute became clear waived the insurer's right to invoke an appraisal.

   The insured's home was

   The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued a detailed, scholarly opinion addressing anti-assignment provisions and the proper allocation for asbestos-related claims.  See Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemn. Co., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 180 (Del. Ct. Ch. Oct. 14, 2009).  Significantly, in determining the anti-assignment clauses did not bar assignment of the policies, the court departed from the reasoning