CGL Mitigation Expenses May Be Covered:  Coverage may be available for the costs of removing two interstate signs because an identical third sign fell.  (SC St.) The South Carolina Supreme Court held that expenses related to the removal of two interstate signs may be covered after an identical third sign fell, causing damage.  The court found that the state-ordered removal of... Read More

Coverage for two class action suits based on the release of private medical information was not excluded by a provision barring recovery for injuries arising out of the violation of state or federal law. A California Federal District Court refused to apply a Hartford policy exclusion barring coverage for violations of state and federal law, despite the fact the policyholder... Read More

In a Chinese drywall case, a Colorado state court (applying Massachusetts law) found that “pollutant” in an absolute pollution exclusion is ambiguous absent more facts. CGL insurers asserted that the absolute pollution exclusion in the policy issued to a Chinese drywall supplier barred coverage because the underlying claims alleged the release of pollutants.  Applying Massachusetts law, the court denied summary... Read More

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a policyholder who received a US EPA request for information and general PRP notice letter was entitled to a defense. In a case involving environmental contamination at the Portland Harbor, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed an earlier ruling that an information request and a general Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) notice... Read More

In a Hurricane Katrina-related case, the federal 7th Circuit held that the fact the insured sold the property before the building was repaired without an assignment did not defeat coverage. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that an owner of an apartment building damaged in Hurricane Katrina had standing to sue, despite having sold the property before the repairs... Read More

In Wisconsin, a policyholder can access policies with a defense-in-addition obligation at the same time as indemnity-only policies, effectively prolonging the duration of the defense-only coverage. In a case concerning 200,000 asbestos suits, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that “all sums” language in six excess general liability insurance policies allowed the policyholder to access all six simultaneously.  Some of... Read More

Late Notice – Insurer Must Be Prejudiced In CO:   Late notice does not bar coverage in Colorado, even when a policyholder settles a case in violation of a no settlement clause before giving notice, if the insurer is not prejudiced. (CO, St.) A Colorado state appeals court holds that even if a policyholder fails to give notice of a construction accident... Read More

D &O / Crime & Fidelity Coverage – Subpoena / Search Warrant Covered:   A search warrant and subpoena triggers an insurer’s duty to defend under a Resolute Portfolio for Private Companies Policy (VA. Fed.). A Virginia Federal Court held that an insurer must provide a defense to a NASA contractor served with a subpoena and search warrant in a fraud investigation despite the... Read More

9/11 Claims Not Barred By Absolute Pollution Exclusion:   Claims by clean-up workers at WTC site not barred by an absolute pollution exclusion for various reasons, including allegations that the defendant did not provide adequate work-place protections (NY Fed). A New York federal court refused to apply the absolute pollution exclusion to bar a defense for lawsuits brought by 9/11 clean-up workers,... Read More

Asbestos – Each Claim An Occurrence / 3 Year Policy = 3 Separate Limits: The decision to sell asbestos-containing products is not a single occurrence under a CGL policy, and a three year policy provides three sets of annual aggregate limits (OH, St.).  An Ohio State Court judge found that the decision to manufacture and sell an asbestos-containing product is not... Read More