Coverage for a subcontractor's defective work was the issue presented in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Sheehan Constr. Co., No. 08-3463, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9021 (7th Cir. April 29, 2009). 

    Moisture problems were found in a residential subdivision for which Sheehan was the general contractor.  An investigation determined defective work by one of Sheehan's

    Exclusions (k) and (m) in comprehensive general liability policies were the focus of a recent decision from the First Circuit.  See Essex Ins. Co. v. BloomSouth Flooring Corp., No. 06-2750, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7896 (1st Cir. April 16, 2009) [here]. 

    Boston Financial Data Services (BFDS) hired Suffolk Construction Corporation as general

    In Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1452 N. Milwaukee Avenue, LLC, No. 07-3147 (7th Cir. April 7, 2009) [here], the Seventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend a land owner causing property damage based on the contractor-subcontractor exclusion.

    When excavating its property and demolishing a building thereon, 1452 LLC damaged a neighboring

    Revisiting the longstanding Stringfellow Acid Pits coverage litigation, the California Supreme Court relied on the doctrine of concurrent proximate cause as applied to the pollution exclusion to determine the insurer must indemnify for covered and uncovered claims.  See State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co., S149988 (Cal. March 9, 2009)[here].

    

    The outline on transfer of liability policies to a successor created by Rina Carmel and me for our round table presentation last week at the ABA Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee in Tucson, is here.  Materials from the plenary and breakout sessions are available at the ABA Section of Litigation website

    Under Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92 Hawai`i 398, 414, 992 P.2d 93, 117 (2000), the Hawai`i Supreme Court determined an insured, but not the insurer, can rely on extrinsic evidence to clarify the underlying allegations and demonstrate the possibility of a claim being covered.  The Texas Supreme Court recently departed from this reasoning and held neither the

    If the manufacturer sells its asbestos-containing product without a warning, does this constitute one occurrence?  Or is each individual's exposure to asbestos, which results in injury, a single occurrence?  These were among the issues before the Wisconsin Supreme Court when faced with certified questions from the Seventh Circuit.  See Plastics Engineering Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 2008AP333-CQ (Wis. Jan. 29

    A case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court demonstrates how crucial the burden of proof is in determining coverage issues.  The court determined two closely related deaths constituted two occurrences under the insured landowner's comprehensive liability policy.  See Addison Ins. Co. v. Fay, No. 105752 (Ill. Sup. Ct. Jan. 23, 2009).  Accordingly, the policy's aggregate limit was applicable.