In East Texas Medical Ctr. Regional Health Sys. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 07-40904 (5th Cir. July 10, 2009) [here], the Fifth Circuit determined Lexington received proper notice from the insured of a claim by a computer-generated loss run.
Lexington's claims-made medical malpractice policy ran from June 8, 2002, to June 8
The "insured versus insured" exclusion in a Directors and Officers Liability policy was at issue in Biltmore Assoc., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-16417, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 15322 (9th Cir. July 11, 2009).
The policy named Visitalk.com, Inc. and its directors and officers as insureds, and promised to pay losses
No Hawai`i appellate court has ever interpreted the meaning of the CGL policy's pollution exclusion. The Ninth Circuit recently issued an Order certifying a question to the the Hawai`i Supreme Court regarding its interpretation of the pollution exclusion. See Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 08-15369 (9th Cir. July 15, 2009) [here
The Insurance Coverage Group of the Hawai`i State Bar Association recently met with Hawai`i Insurance Commissioner, J. P. Schmidt. The Commissioner gave his insight on the state of the Insurance industry on both the mainland and in Hawai`i.
At the national level, the Commissioner reported there are several bills before Congress to federalize the insurance
Acknowledging that the insured's cotton was damaged by an occurrence, the Eighth Circuit nonetheless affirmed the district court's denial of coverage based upon an exclusion. See Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DG&D Co., Inc., No. 08-2699, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14236 (8th Cir. July 1, 2009).
The insured operated a cotton gin. After delivering 50,000
The scope of coverage for "real estate professional services" was at stake in St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. ERA Oxford Realty Co. Greystone, LLC., No. 07-00921-CV (11th Cir. June 23, 2009) [here].
The underlying suit alleged ERA employees approached two real estate brokers to discuss a merger. A verbal agreement was reached
The New York Court of Appeals considered whether a Landlord was an additional insured under a policy obtained by the Tenant. See Kassis v. The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., No. 117 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 25, 2009).
The Landlord leased property to the insured, who, pursuant to the lease, obtained a commercial general liability insurance
Two issues were presented in Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50156 (E.D. La. June 15 2009). First, was the excess carrier's following form policy was bound by the primary carrier's exception to the flood exclusion? Second, was the primary policy's anti-concurrent causation clause applicable?
The insured owed various cemeteries, funeral
Bad faith and coverage for looting were at issue in Spears v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 08-3183, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49554 (E. D. La. June 12, 2009). The insureds' home was damaged by Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005. A homeowner's policy issued by State Farm provided coverage of up to $179,700 for dwelling and up
The insured held a commercial auto policy issued on June 5, 2006 by Infinity General Insurance Company. See Infinity Gen. Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, No. 08-14785 (11th Cir. June 8, 2009) [here]. The premium was overdue as of July 5, 2006, and a cancellation notice was sent July 10, 2006. The notice indicated that