Senior Judge Senter from the Southern District of Mississippi continues to be on the front lines of the Katrina insurance coverage battles.  In a case headed for trial, Judge Senter recently denied motions by both the insured and insurer attempting to establish estoppel on coverage issues.  See Politz v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    Coverage under a homeowners' policy was denied by State Farm when corrosion surrounding a nail driven through a pipe caused a leak and extensive water damage many years later.  See Freedman v. State Farm Ins. Co., B202617 (Cal. Ct. App. May 5, 2009)[here].  The policy provided "all-risk" coverage, but excluded loss from:

    It's now late April.  Posting on a decision rendered in March, early March at that, breaches a blogger's protocol.  And In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation; Pertains to: Road Home, Louisiana State, No. 05-4182, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30406 (E.D. La. March 5, 2009), received press when issued.  The case allowed individual claims

    The Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) decision in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 27429, 2009 Haw. App. LEXIS 134 (Haw. Ct. App. March 31, 2009) is unpublished and the facts are detailed, but it's a Hawaii insurance-related decision.  So we submit the following.

    Ms. Labrador, the insured, sustained

    It's an unpublished decision and not certified for publication.  Nevertheless, the analysis of the interplay between the anti-concurrent causation clause and the efficient proximate cause doctrine described in Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co., G040299, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2589 (Cal. Ct. App. March 30, 2009) warrants attention. 

    The insured's home suffered damage

    How does the court assign the burden of proof when a property policy does not clearly state whether it is an all risks or named perils policy?  The court faced such a policy in Royale Green Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-21404, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24349 (S.D. Fla. March 24, 2009).

   After Hurricane Wilma

    The insured moved for summary judgment on bad faith because of the insurer's alleged delayed and incomplete payments after Hurricane Katrina destroyed property.  See Plaquemines Parish School Bd v. Indus. Risk Insurers, No. 06-7213, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20004 (E.D. La. March 11, 2009). 

    School buildings operated by the insured

    The issue before the New York Court of Appeals in Fasso v. Independent Health Assoc., No. 21 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) [here] was whether the injured party and the tortfeasor could settle on terms that extinguished the insurer's subrogation rights? 

    Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Doerr and subsequently developed complications that