In a long awaited decision regarding California's liability for damages caused by the Stringfellow Acid Pits case, the California Supreme Court adopted the "all sums" method of allocating coverage among multiple insurers for long-tail claims. Further, the court concluded that stacking of policy limits was consistent with the CGL policy language. See State v.

   The Texas Court of Appeals held that the insured need not prove the exact dates physical damage occurred in order to trigger defense and indemnity coverage. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10027 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011).

   In 1999, the insured built a home.

   The federal district court ultimately stayed a construction defect case, but offered comments on the current status of coverage disputes for such defects in Hawaii. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481(D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011).

   National Union filed a complaint for

   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 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

   A policy's "other insurance" clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

   Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition

   The insurer sought to avoid coverage for claims against its insured, a supplier of Chinese drywall. The court ruled, however that the exclusions relied upon by the insurer did not bar coverage. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Am. Building Materials, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52837 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011).

   The

   After being sued for failure to secure a policy, the insurance agents sought dismissal of the insured's suit on statute of limitations ground.  Kelly v. Lodwick, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4810 (Fla. Ct. App. April 6, 2011).

   A private school was notified its policy would not be renewed after it lapsed on

   Georgia has joined the growing legion of high state courts to find that faulty workmanship can arise from an occurrence, invoking coverage for a contractor.  See Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Dev. Co., Inc., 2011 Ga. LEXIS 177 (Ga. March 7, 2011). 

   Hathaway Development Co., a general contractor, sued