A broadly drafted professional services exclusion was at issue in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Ford, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10562 (5th Cir. May 21, 2010).
Ford purchased a CGL policy from Admiral. The policy included an exclusion for designated professional services, stating:
SCHEDULE
Description of Professional Services:
1. ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED
Can an insurer remove the insured's state court suit based on supplemental jurisdiction arising under a homeowner's policy when the insured has also sued a separate insurer in federal court under a flood policy? The Fifth Circuit held where the federal court lacked original jurisdiction, removal was improper. See Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 603 F.3d
The next meeting of the Hawaii State Bar Association's Insurance Coverage Litigation Section will be at 12:00 p.m., Thursday, June 17, 2010, at the HSBA conference room, 1100 Alakea Street, Suite 1000, Honolulu. We will discuss the Intermediate Court of Appeals recent decision, Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2010 Haw. App. LEXIS
In Bradley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9510 (5th Cir. May 10, 2010), the policy's total loss provision was found ambiguous. The case was remanded a factual determination on the amount to which the insureds were entitled for loss of their home.
Hurricane Katrina totally destroyed the insureds' home, leaving only a
Utilizing a novel argument, the insured contended it had no duty to defend the additional insured until there was a finding of fault against the named insured. The court rejected this argument in 373 Wythe Realty, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45947 (E.D. N.Y. May 11, 2010).
Wythe
Competing motions for summary judgment regarding the duty to defend an additional insured were both denied by the court in Detroit Public Schools Program Mgt. Team, LLC v. Valley Forge Ins. Co, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40904 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2010).
The Detroit Public Schools Program Management Team was organized to act as an
Lloyd’s, along with other excess insurers, recently filed suit against BP, seeking a declaration that there is no obligation to cover BP as an additional insured in policies issued to Transocean Ltd. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. BP P.L.C., No. 4:10-cv-01823 (S.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010) (See Complaint).
Transocean owns the
An ambiguous endorsement on the scope of coverage for additional insureds meant the insurer had a duty to defend. See Ames Const., Inc. v. Intermountain Indus., Inc., 2010 U.S. LEXIS 41588 (D. Mont. April 28, 2010).
Ames was the general contractor on a project to expand and upgrade the Missoula Wastewater Treatment
Determining the "Cost of Replacement" of the insureds' home was before the court in Nunez v Allstate Ins Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 8362 (5th Cir. April 20, 2010).
The insureds' home in Louisiana was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The insureds received flood policy limits of $75,000 for structural damage and $30,000
Ever since the Ninth Circuit made an Erie guess in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr. Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), that the Hawai’i appellate courts would find that construction defects do not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy, coverage practitioners have waited for an answer. Today, the Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals