A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
Harvard College's claim for excess coverage was properly denied for failure to provide timely notice on a claims-made policy. President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20715 (1st Cir. Aug. 9, 2023).
Harvard had a one year liability policy with National Union…
The Tenth Circuit held that inquiry notices sent to the insured by the Securities and Exchange Commission were not a claim under a claims-made Directors' and Officers' policy. MusclePharm Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20233 (10th Cir. Oct. 17 2017).
The SEC mailed a letter…
The court found that the insurer properly denied a claim made under the claims-made policy during the second policy period when the incident occurred during the first policy period. Alaska Interstate Constr. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15997 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017).
Crum…
The Second Circuit found that two claims arising from the same project were unrelated, creating two separate payments by the insurer for the two separate claims. Dormitory Auth. of New York v. Continental Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. 12088 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2014).
In 1995, the State agency contracted with the…
An informative teleconference on Claims-Made policies was recently hosted by Strafford. Here are some take-away points.
…
Is there a duty to defend under a claims made policy when the insurer has notice of alleged malpractice before the policy period, but the insured is not sued until the policy period actually commences? In what appears to be a harsh result, the Tenth Circuit determined the notice and filing of suit were a single act. …
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…
When the insured, Matkin, an architectural firm, was sued by GEWAC, Inc., shopping center owner, for improper drainage in a parking lot designed by Matkin, Everest, the insurer, refused to defend, contending Matkin had not given timely notice under the claims-made policy. Matkin-Hoover Engineering, Inc. v. Everest National Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-0451, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44057 (W.D.
The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the district court's decision granting reimbursement and prejudgment interest on amounts paid to the insured for defense and settlement pursuant to a reservation of rights. See Evanston Ins. Co. v. OEA, Inc., No. 07-15316 (9th Cir. May 21, 2009)[here].
OEA acquired a claims-made policy from Evanston Insurance Company in 1998. The…
