A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
In a case of first impression before the California appellate courts, the duty to defend was deemed to include statutorily required pre-litigation proceedings. See Clarendon Am Ins. Co. v. Starnet Ins. Co., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. July 27, 2010).
Simplifying the facts, a homeowners association served notice upon…
While operating heavy construction equipment, the insured's nine-year old son injured a worker. The court considered whether the insurer had to defend and indemnify under a motor vehicle exclusion in the insured's homeowner's policy. See Rhoades v. Massachusetts Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assoc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69870 (D. Mass. July 13, 2010).
The…
The issue in Pekin Ins. Co. v. Roszak/ADC. LLC, 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 635 (Ill. Ct. App. June 25, 2010) was whether a duty to defend was owed to the additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege any negligence by the named insured.
An employee of Area Erectors, a subcontractor of the general…
Should an insurer be allowed to pursue a federal action for declaratory judgment on its duty to defend where the insured has failed to cooperate in numerous underlying state actions against it? The Fifth Circuit decided the district court erred in staying the declaratory judgment action and allowed the federal case to proceed simultaneously with the state cases. See …
Two interesting issues were presented in Jeffrey M. Brown, Assoc., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 108 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 23, 2010). First, what was the scope of coverage provided by an additional insured endorsement which provided the coverage was "excess over any other insurance?" Second…
In a coverage dispute between two insurers, the court considered the impact of an endorsement excluding coverage for any loss that first manifested before the term of the policy. See Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Am. Safety Indemn. Co., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 981 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2010).
Whitacre Construction, a…
As we noted in a prior post, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently decided that construction defects do not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy. Citing the same Colorado Court of Appeals case that the Hawaii ICA found persuasive, the 10th Circuit certified a similar issue to the Colorado Supreme Court in Greystone …
Defense obligations under a policy containing umbrella and excess coverage were before the court in Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. The Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Vulcan manufactured and sold perchloroethylene. The City of Modesto sued Vulcan, alleging that use of perchloroethylene by the dry cleaning industry…
Marriott entered a franchise agreement with Columbia Hotels. See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Amoco Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53253 (W.D. Mo. May 28, 2010). In the agreement, Columbia agreed to "indemnify, defend and save harmless Marriott against all losses, damages, claims, . . . arising out of . . . the Franchised…
On the heels of a 2008 case involving a similar issue (Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. [prior post here]), the New York Court of Appeals was again confronted with questions regarding the scope of coverage for an additional insured in a construction context. See Regal Constr. Co. v. National Union Fire …
