Interpreting Kentucky law, the Sixth Circuit determined that the contractor who failed to complete a project was entitled to a defense in an action brought by its performance bond carrier. Phoenix Ins. Co., et al. v. Wehr Constructors, Inc., 2025 U.S, App. LEXIS 9258 (6th Cir. April 18, 2025).
Wehr
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer in a case involving coverage for a shooting death. Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc., 2025 U.S. App, LEXIS 9346 (11th Cir. April 18, 2025)
The Lodge was operating as a
The Iowa Supreme Court determined that a consumer fraud claim against a contractor was not an "occurrence" and was not covered under the CGL policy. Dostart v. Columbia Ins. Group, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 48 (April 18, 2025).
Tyler Custom Homes entered into a construction contract with the Dostarts to
The Oregon Supreme Court wrestled with the meaning of "occurrence" in a liability policy, determining that recovery for an "accident" depended on whether there was a basis in fact for imposing tort liability. Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2025 Ore. LEXIS 242 (Ore. April 17, 2025).
Plaintiffs hired the insured
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer despite the insured's claim it was not adequately compensated for its loss. In the Matter of New York Inn, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7887 (5th Cir. April 3, 2025).
Viva Inn Motel submitted a claim
The court rejected the insurer's motion to dismiss after the the insured's vessel sank during a hurricane. Knight v. Market Am. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71973 April 16, 2025).
Hurricane Ian sank a yacht owned by the Knight Living Trust. The Trust insured the yacht under a policy
The court denied cross-motions from the insured and the insurer after the insured's dwelling suffered a collapse of the ceiling. Simons v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75839 (C.D. Cal. March 4, 2025).
Gary Simons bought a second home located in Park City, Utah (Utah Property) that was
Faced with a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by several of its insurers, the insured was successful in arguing that the Loss of Attraction endorsement in one insurer's policy allowed the insured to pursue losses suffered by its businesses due to COVID-19. BBX Capital Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., et
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss even though the plaintiff was not named in the policy. Viccellio v. Foremost Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S Dist. LEXIS 61590 (M.D. La. March 31, 2025).
Plaintiff's residence sustained damage from Hurricane Ida. Plaintiff timely notified the insurer
The court denied cross-motions from the insured and the insurer after the insured’s dwelling suffered a collapse of the ceiling. Simons v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75839 (C.D. Calif. March 4, 2025).
Gary Simons bought a second home located in Park City, Utah (“Utah Property”) that was