Does a policy's Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement bar primary coverage for an additional insured with a policy of its own?  Although the court answered yes in Kummer Enter., Inc. v. HBE Corp., No. 1:09-cv-109, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6403 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2010), it nevertheless determined the additional insured was entitled to a

   This cases touches on both maritime law and insurance coverage.  Therefore, the initial question was which office blog should do the post: our blog or hawaiioceanlaw.com, authored by  Damon Key blogging colleague, Mark Murakami?  Easily resolved: Mark found the case, but passed it on to us.

   In Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sneed's Shipbuilding, Inc.

   A psychologist was entitled to coverage after the court determined the professional liability policy's Knowing Wrongful Act Exclusion was ambiguous.  See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Pope, No. 08-2848, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 516 (8th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010).

   Sparing you of the tortuous procedural history (running on three tracks: arbitration; up and

   The Texas Supreme Court recently held that an insurer may have a duty to indemnify even if the duty to defend never arises.  See D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co, Ltd., No. 06-1018, 2009 Tex. LEXIS 1042 (Tex. Dec. 11, 2009).

   The homeowners purchased their house from D.R. Horton.  After moving

   Allegations in the underlying complaint proved crucial in analyzing coverage for an additional insured under Texas' eight-corners rule.  See The Burlington N. and Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 08-06-00022CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9347 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2009). 

   The railroad entered

   Complicated facts but easily understood legal standards were presented in Breaux v. Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., No. 04-1636, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112374 (E.D. La. Dec. 2, 2009).

   Era Aviation, Inc., a subsidiary of Rowan Companies, Inc., transported oil field workers by helicopter to an offshore drilling vessel in the Gulf owned by Unocal. 

   Defendants were sued in an underlying state court action.  See Riverport Ins. Co. v. Oakland Cmty. Housing, Inc., No. C 08-3883, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104472 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009).  Defendants were additional insureds under a policy issued by Riverport.  In its coverage action for declaratory judgment, Riverport secured an order awarding summary judgment that determined there

   A default judgment against the insured should not deprive the injured party from pursuing the coverage litigation according to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 07-17383, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23718 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009).  

    The insured provided maintenance services for Northwest Airlines at

    Whether the federal court has jurisdiction over a coverage dispute of a purported maritime policy was the issue in New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Home Savings and Loan Co. of Youngstown, Ohio, No. 08-3902, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21133 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009). 

   National Marine, a yacht dealer and marina operator, purchased

   Coverage for an underlying suit involving an alleged defective product was the issue in the detailed, narrative findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the district court in National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Puget Plastics Corp., No. B-05-050, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70723 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12