The additional insured contractor was not entitled to a defense where the underlying case failed to allege any negligence by insured subcontractor. See Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. v. Am. States Ins. Co., No. 09-548-JO, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16091 (D. Ore. Feb. 22, 2010).
Providence built houses and subcontracted with Woodmaster to
The "your work" exclusion was held inapplicable to damaged portions of a building for which the insured was not responsible. Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Am. Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co., No 05-4031, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2836 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2010).
The insured contracted with Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. to build a Golden Corral
The ABA’s Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee’s annual conference was held in Tucson last week. Rina Carmel and I led a lively discussion on applicable triggers for property policies. Although the manifestation of an injury has been used by some courts to trigger a property policy, the injury-in-fact trigger has more recently been adopted by other courts. The outline for our presentation is here.
If the named insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention (SIR), can the additional insured undertake payment to trigger coverage? Looking at the language of the policies under consideration, the court answered no in Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. G040876, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 172 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12
Is damage caused by snow melt excluded under a homeowner's policy because it constitutes standing water? The court answered yes in Northwest Bedding Co. v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. 28044-6, 2010 Wash. App. LEXIS 299 (Wa. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2010).
The Spokane area, where the insured's buildings were located, experienced
In Builders' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Glascarr Prop., Inc., No. COA09-486, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 186, (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010), the court found no coverage for loss caused by mold because of the anti-concurrent causation clause. Whether reliance on the anti-concurrent causation clause was correct is difficult to determine from the facts
After the insureds' home was damaged by Hurricane Wilma, they filed a claim for reimbursement. Sunshine paid the claim and closed the file. See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, No. 4D09-2502, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 915 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Feb. 3, 2010). Two years later, the insureds submitted a "supplemental" claim for damage discovered
Does a policy's Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement bar primary coverage for an additional insured with a policy of its own? Although the court answered yes in Kummer Enter., Inc. v. HBE Corp., No. 1:09-cv-109, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6403 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2010), it nevertheless determined the additional insured was entitled to a
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 insureds' negligence claim against the insurer for failing to recommend the purchase of business interruption insurance survived the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment in St. Augustine High School v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, No. WMN-08-CV-2518, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6570 (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2010).
St. Joseph Society was