Whether an oral agreement to name a subcontractor as an additional insured under the policy provided coverage to the subcontractor was the issue in Palmer v. Martinez, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1049 (La. Ct. App. July 21, 2010).
The plaintiff was employed by A.T. Martinez ("ATM") as a logging truck driver. ATM
In a case of first impression before the California appellate courts, the duty to defend was deemed to include statutorily required pre-litigation proceedings. See Clarendon Am Ins. Co. v. Starnet Ins. Co., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. July 27, 2010).
Simplifying the facts, a homeowners association served notice upon
The Fifth Circuit considered the impact on coverage when an anti-concurrent causation clause seems to be contradicted by a "reverse" anti-concurrent causation clause in an endorsement. See Penthouse Owners Assoc., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14531 (5th Cir. July 14, 2010).
Penthouse's property was completely destroyed by Hurricane
Our article, entitled “Getting Around LHWCA’s Exclusive Remedy Roadblock – Employee’s Claims Against Employer and Insurer for Intentional Torts,” has been published by Coverage, a periodical circulated to members of the ABA’s Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee. My Damon Key blogging colleague, Mark Murakami (hawaiioceanlaw.com), and I teamed to author the article
While operating heavy construction equipment, the insured's nine-year old son injured a worker. The court considered whether the insurer had to defend and indemnify under a motor vehicle exclusion in the insured's homeowner's policy. See Rhoades v. Massachusetts Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assoc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69870 (D. Mass. July 13, 2010).
The
In a case involving destruction of a mobile home by Hurricane Ivan, the Florida Court of Appeal addressed proper jury instructions regarding the burden of proof under an anti-concurrent causation clause. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9885 (Fla. Ct. App. July 7, 2010).
The insureds had both a
The issue in Pekin Ins. Co. v. Roszak/ADC. LLC, 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 635 (Ill. Ct. App. June 25, 2010) was whether a duty to defend was owed to the additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege any negligence by the named insured.
An employee of Area Erectors, a subcontractor of the general
Should an insurer be allowed to pursue a federal action for declaratory judgment on its duty to defend where the insured has failed to cooperate in numerous underlying state actions against it? The Fifth Circuit decided the district court erred in staying the declaratory judgment action and allowed the federal case to proceed simultaneously with the state cases. See
Two interesting issues were presented in Jeffrey M. Brown, Assoc., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 108 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 23, 2010). First, what was the scope of coverage provided by an additional insured endorsement which provided the coverage was "excess over any other insurance?" Second
The insurer defended the underlying construction defect case under a reservation of rights, but moved for summary judgment in the coverage action on its duty to indemnify. Mid-Continent Caus. Co. v. Frank Casserino Constr., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59363 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2010).
The general contractor subcontracted with the insured to perform building