In a coverage dispute between two insurers, the court considered the impact of an endorsement excluding coverage for any loss that first manifested before the term of the policy. See Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Am. Safety Indemn. Co., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 981 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2010).
Whitacre Construction, a
The Ninth Circuit covered a lot of ground in reviewing the Benefits Review Board's ("BRB") determination that the claimant was entitled to benefits in Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12767(9th Cir. June 22, 2010).
Ogawa was a storeroom maintenance clerk at the employer's marine terminal from 1977 to November
As we noted in a prior post, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently decided that construction defects do not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy. Citing the same Colorado Court of Appeals case that the Hawaii ICA found persuasive, the 10th Circuit certified a similar issue to the Colorado Supreme Court in Greystone
Defense obligations under a policy containing umbrella and excess coverage were before the court in Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. The Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Vulcan manufactured and sold perchloroethylene. The City of Modesto sued Vulcan, alleging that use of perchloroethylene by the dry cleaning industry
Marriott entered a franchise agreement with Columbia Hotels. See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Amoco Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53253 (W.D. Mo. May 28, 2010). In the agreement, Columbia agreed to "indemnify, defend and save harmless Marriott against all losses, damages, claims, . . . arising out of . . . the Franchised
On the heels of a 2008 case involving a similar issue (Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. [prior post here]), the New York Court of Appeals was again confronted with questions regarding the scope of coverage for an additional insured in a construction context. See Regal Constr. Co. v. National Union Fire
In Tiara Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Co., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10835 (5th Cir. May 27, 2010), it was unclear whether, under Florida law, the economic loss rule foreclosed claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the insurance broker. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit certified the question to the Florida
The insured cardiologist obtained a disability policy from Lloyd's in 1999. See Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 2010 U..S. App. LEXIS 11836 (9th Cir. June 10, 2010). In the event of disability, Lloyd's agreed to pay the insured $15,000 per month for up to sixty months.
In 2001, the
Relying on well established Hawaii case law that the insurer must defend unless the underlying allegations demonstrate coverage is impossible, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer. See Island Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Arakaki, 2010 Haw. App. LEXIS 296 (Haw. Ct. App. June 16, 2010).