The Supreme Court issued its opinion this morning in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The Court decided eight to zero that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect a judicial taking because the Florida law of accretion took into account that the littoral owners right to accretion was always
Hawai`i Appellate Courts Propose Rule Changes to Allow Electronic Filing
The Hawai`i Supreme Court seeks comments regarding proposed changes to the Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure. [revised rules here]. The major change would allow electronic filing.
The Court invites public comment on the changes until Thursday, June 24, 2010. Comments may be mailed to the Judiciary Public Affairs Office at 417 South King Street
Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage
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
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Lacking in Suit Based on Homeowner’s Policy
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
HSBA Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Discuss Group Builder’s Decision
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
Court Ponders Complexities of Measuring Loss
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
Determination of Insured’s Fault Not Prerequisite for Defending Additional Insured
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
Endorsement on Scope of Coverage for Additional Insureds Found Ambiguous
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 Seeks to Limit BP’s Additional Insured Coverage
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
Ambiguous Endorsement Means Insurer Must Defend Additional Insureds
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