An article recently came out in the "Construct" journal, put out the Construction Litigation Committee of the ABA, entitled "State Courts Trend: Coverage for Faulty Workmanship."  This article is similar to an earlier blog post analyzing the Ninth Circuit decision entitled Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) and

Stripping the job of an insurance company to its basic components reveals a gritty truth: insurance companies make money by collecting more than they pay out.  A successful operation depends on exercising good judgment on what risks to insure (or charging high enough premiums).  Unfortunately, an insurer can also vigorously oppose attempts to obtain coverage

     Unlike California, Hawai`i law does not statutorily impose strict disclosure requirements when an insurance enrollment application mandates that disputes be resolved solely by arbitration.  California courts, on the other hand, narrowly construe an insurer’s attempt to limit disputes to arbitration, as evidenced by the recent decision in Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California

      In a prior post, we noted that much of Honolulu has yet to be mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood insurance purposes.  This leaves neighborhoods unrated for flood insurance, resulting in high premiums even for areas not prone to floods. 

     An informative story appearing over the weekend in

     Senior Federal Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. of the Southern District of Mississippi has come full circle in his analysis of the anti-concurrent cause provision in home-owner’s policies.  Judge Senter has been in the trenches, handling many of the initial Katrina insurance related cases at the trial court level.  In some of Judge Senter’s

At stake in Gillan v. Government Employees Insurance Co., No. 28075 (Haw. Ct. App. April 17, 2008), was whether the insurer could deny Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits based upon a review of medical records by a doctor chosen by the insurer but without the insured’s approval.

Gillian was injured in an accident while

Although it did not address insurance coverage, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) issued an important decision regarding the state’s regulation of the insurance industry in Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, et al, No. 27840 (Haw. Ct. App. April 14, 2008).

The Insurance Regulation Fund (IRF) was established by the legislature in 1999,

Insurers continued an impressive record of securing reversals on appeal from adverse coverage decisions in Katrina related litigation.  The two latest cases were issued on  consecutive days, one by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Broussard v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 07-60443 (5th Cir. April 7, 2008) and the other by