The insured, Dish Network Corporation, was sued for patent infringement by Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (RAKTL). See Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20955 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2011). RAKTL alleged Dish infringed on twenty-three patents. The underlying complaint provided little information about how Dish

   Application of the facts to the "your work" exclusion was the key to resolving coverage issued in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech L.L.C., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21076 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).

   Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech L.L.C. to service a hydrotreating reactor. In January 2005, Cat Tech replaced certain parts

   The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

    The policies held by Bellevue Master

   The interpretation of the additional insured endorsement was key to determining coverage in Lancaster v. Ferrell Paving, Inc., 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2011).

   Ferrell Paving, Inc. used a warehouse to store its construction materials. Ferrell employed Imperial Guard Service, Inc. to provide security services for the

   The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011) [Evanston Decision here].

   Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides

   The insured, Georgia-Pacific, sued USF&G for failing to defend in three underlying lawsuits. Georgia-Pacific LLC v. United Stated Fidelity & Guar. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18014 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2011). The district court granted USF&G's motion for summary judgment because the policy's Self-Funded Retention Endorsement had not been satisfied.

   The

   The court determined there was no coverage for water intrusion based upon a comprehensive Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) Exclusion. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Gerlicher Co., LLC, 2011 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 79 (Okla. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2011).

   Gerlicher purchased a commercial building constructed by general contractor Pinion Construction

   In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

   Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium