In October, we reported here that the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the cancellation of a policy based on the insured's misrepresentation of the type of vehicle being insured.  The Hawaii Supreme Court recently affirmed the ICA's decision.  See Farmer v. Pacific Speciality Ins. Co., 2011 Haw. LEXIS 28 (Haw. Feb. 7, 2011).

   Farmer

   The Fifth Circuit considered whether the second-layer excess policy incorporated the anti-concurrent causation clause and water exclusion from the primary policy.  See ARM Properties Management Group v. RSUI Indemn. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23174 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010).

   ARM purchased property insurance for hundreds of apartment complexes.  By grouping separate

   When the insureds purchased their home along the Mississippi Gulf coast, they discussed obtaining property insurance with Richard Schmidt, a Nationwide insurance salesman employed by Felsher Insurance Agency.  See Mladineo v. Schmidt, 2010 Miss. LEXIS 569 (Miss. Oct. 28, 2010).  The insureds' complaint alleged they told Schmidt they desired a policy with full

  The insured's claim for business interruption losses resulting from the city's vacate order was not covered as an ensuing loss in Rapid Park Indus. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115747 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010).

    The insured leased a parking garage.  Great Northern insured the premises under a business owners' policy.  The policy

   A prior post [here]  discussed the Fifth Circuit's grappling with the proper measurement for covering loss of a home due to Hurricane Katrina.  On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit altered its prior determination that the policy's loss provision was ambiguous.  See Bradley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19476 (5th Cir. Sept.

   The American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) recently filed suit against Lloyd’s and HCC International Insurance Company for failure to provide coverage for property loss caused by the earthquakes and tsunamis that struck the area in September 2009.  See Am. Samoa Power Authority v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., Civil No. 10-00546 ACK-KSC