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

   Whether a multiple vehicle accident creates separate occurrences, thereby increasing policy limits, was the issue in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Munroe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15062 (7th Cir. July 22, 2010).

   Three trucks owned by Wayne Wilkins Trucking were traveling the highway in convoy.  All trucks were covered under a single policy

   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 insurer defended the underlying construction defect case under a reservation of rights, but moved for summary judgment in the coverage action on its duty to indemnify.  Mid-Continent Caus. Co. v. Frank Casserino Constr., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59363 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2010). 

   The general contractor subcontracted with the insured to perform building

   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

   Ever since the Ninth Circuit made an Erie guess in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr. Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), that the Hawai’i appellate courts would find that construction defects do not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy, coverage practitioners have waited for an answer.  Today, the Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals

   The court considered the validity of a contractual provision to provide insurance when the indemnity clause was deemed invalid.  See Travelers Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7113 (5th Cir. April 6, 2010).

   The landlord, The Centre, leased commercial property to the tenant, Best Buy Stores, Inc.  Pursuant to the

   In Builders' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Glascarr Prop., Inc., No. COA09-486, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 186, (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010), the court found no coverage for loss caused by mold because of the anti-concurrent causation clause.  Whether reliance on the anti-concurrent causation clause was correct is difficult to determine from the facts