Burlington Insurance Company wins again.  The Ninth Circuit of Appeals issued an unpublished decision a few months ago entitled Burlington Insurance v. Steve’s Ag Services, which appears to perpetuate some of the logic flaws in the original Burlington decision.  Although the court refused to explain the underlying facts (instead simply stating "the parties are

     The New York Court of Appeals recently ruled that commercial property owners can seek “consequential damages” against their insurers who breach the policy.  In reaching its decision, the Court relied, in part, on a decision by the Hawaii Court of Appeals, The Best Place, Inc. v. Penn Am. Ins. Co., 82 Haw. 120,

     Under Hawaii law, a party to a construction contract cannot exempt itself from liability for bodily injury caused by its “sole negligence or willful misconduct.”  Haw. Rev. Stat. §431:10-222.   Texas is similar in that it does not allow an indemnity agreement to cover an indemnitee’s sole negligence, but provides an exception if the

     The Hawaii Insurance Code provides that a cancellation notice sent by the insurer shall not be deemed valid unless evidence of mailing is provided.  Haw. Rev. Stat. §431:10-226.5.  What if the insurer sends the notice by certified mail, but the notice is returned as undelivered?  Although never addressed by the Hawaii Supreme Court,

     In Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 76 Haw. 277, 875 P.2d 894 (Haw. 1994), the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed equitable apportionment of liability among two insurers who provided coverage at various times over a number of years during which property damage occurred.  In Sentinel, the

     The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered whether an insurer must cover a subcontractor’s contractual obligation to indemnify the contractor for the contractor’s negligence.  XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd., No. 06-41785 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2008).  The subcontractor’s employee was killed at a job site explosion

     In February, 2006, Federal District Court Judge Helen Gillmor granted the insurer’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, determining there was no duty to defend.  Scottdale Ins. Co. v. Sullivan Properties, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11582 (D. Haw., Feb. 27, 2006).   The decision invited Scottsdale move for reimbursement of defense costs.