The Indiana Court of Appeals found the "personal injury" provisions to be ambiguous when asked whether the migration of sand constituted a "wrongful entry" or "invasion of the right of private occupancy" under the policy. FLM, LLC v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2012 Ind. Ct. App. LEXIS 411 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012).

   FLM

   The New Mexico Supreme Court considered whether the word "sudden" found in the pollution exclusion of a liability policy was ambiguous. See United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 32,939 (N.M. Aug. 23, 2012).

   United Nuclear operated several uranium mines in New Mexico from the 1960s through the early 1980s. At Church

   The issue faced by the Minnesota Supreme Court was whether the insurer had a duty to disclose the insured's interest in obtaining a written explanation of an arbitration award that identified the claims of recovery and the portions of the award attributable to each. Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 2012

   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