The plaintiff was a developer of a subdivision.  See Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 963 (D. S.C. Jan. 5, 2011).  Pursuant to a contract, it hired Matthews Construction as general contractor to build the subdivision.  Matthews agreed to providea general liability policy from Amerisure naming

   Where the insured faces environmental suits in several states, should the law governing the liability policy be "site-specific," meaning the law of each state in which allegations of injury or property damage arise governs the policy's interpretation, or "uniform," whereby a single state's law governs?  In Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Standard Fusee Corp

   If an indemnity agreement is never triggered, is the agreement still an "insured contract" under a CGL policy?  The court in Cheramie v. ERA Helicopters, LLC, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 128611 (E.D. La. Dec. 3, 2010) answered yes.

   Dodi Cheramie, an employee of Professional Cleaning Maintenance Services, LLC ("PCMS"), sued ERA when she

    The Ninth Circuit ruled that the insurer providing a defense in a trademark infringement case was entitled to equitable contribution from another insurer that improperly refused to defend.  See  Hudson Ins. v. Colony Ins., No. 09-55275 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010)[here].

   In the underlying suit, NFL Properties LLC accused All Authentic Corporation of

   An exclusion under a CGL policy for bodily injury arising out of automobile accidents prevented coverage when an employee was at fault.  See Sprinkles v. Assoc. Indemn. Corp., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1532 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2010).

   Bibinz, an employee of Sinco, caused the accident, killing the deceased.  The deceased's family

   An exclusion for claims arising from roofing barred coverage when the underlying plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold.  See Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Lavigne, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17675 (1st Cir. Aug. 24, 2010).

   Michael Daigle was hired to put a new roof on an apartment building and to seal some

   When the insured was sued for allegedly engaging in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, a defense was sought from the insurer.  See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17098 (10th Cir. Aug. 16, 2010).  Once it was determined there was no duty to defend, was the insurer entitled

   A hold harmless agreement and certificates of insurance failed to convey additional insured status under the policy in Pina v. Dora Homes, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 73941 (E.D. N.Y. July 22, 2010).

   Several defendants responsible for construction at the site entered a hold harmless agreement with Choray Construction Corporation.  The agreement stated Choray