Vague Allegations Of Damage To Other Property Caused By Improperly Installed Building Components Triggers Duty To Defend An Illinois Appellate Court, applying Illinois law, held that an insurer had a duty to defend a contractor in an underlying action filed by a homeowners association. The insurer argued that it had no duty to defend, because the underlying action only alleged... Read More

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the insurers had no coverage obligation for losses tied to a data breach because there was no publication of the material, as required under the policy provisions for coverage, where the policyholder could not show that anyone viewed the lost data. Recall Total Information Management Inc. (“Recall”) contracted with International Business Machines (“IBM”) to... Read More

Broker Responsible For Building Owner’s $2.2 Million Property Damage Loss For Failing To Procure Proper Insurance An Appellate Court of Illinois, applying Illinois law, held that a broker committed negligence by failing to procure insurance coverage for the policyholder’s building. The policyholder requested that the broker buy insurance for a vacant building. Instead of buying insurance that would have covered... Read More

Insurer Has Duty To Defend Where State Law Is Unclear Regarding Whether Its Policy Is Triggered The Eleventh Circuit held that the insurer breached its duty to defend its policyholder, a building contractor, where Florida law was uncertain regarding whether property damage triggers the policy in place when damage occurs (injury-in-fact) or, alternatively, when damage is discovered (manifestation). The... Read More

Umbrella Policy Incorporates Underlying Duty to Defend Where Policy Agrees To “Continue In Force As Underlying Insurance” Upon Exhaustion Of Primary Policy An Illinois appellate court, applying Illinois law, held that an umbrella policy which contained a provision stating that it would “continue in force as underlying insurance” upon exhaustion of the primary policy included a duty to defend, where... Read More

Breach Of ‘Consent To Settle’ Provision Relieves Insurer Of Indemnity Obligation The Georgia Supreme Court  – responding to certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit – held that a policyholder who settled securities class action litigation for $4.9 million, without obtaining the consent of its excess carrier, is precluded from seeking recovery from its insurer for the settlement payment. Piedmont Officer Realty... Read More

Fire Started Intentionally In Vacant Building Does Not Fall Within ‘Vandalism And Malicious Mischief’ Exclusion A California appellate court, applying California law, held that fire damage likely caused by a “warming fire” started by a transient that spread to other parts of the property did not trigger a fire policy exclusion barring coverage for property damage caused by “vandalism or... Read More

Court Holds Insurer Must Defend, Even Though Complaint Did Not Expressly Assert Cause Of Action For Advertising Injury A California federal district court, applying California law, held that an insurer must defend a home health care company for allegations of fraudulent use of advertising materials because the underlying factual allegations potentially included a covered advertising injury, even though the named... Read More

Court Finds Storm Surge Damage From Superstorm Sandy Is Not Subject To Flood Coverage Sublimits A New Jersey court, applying New Jersey law, held that damage from Superstorm Sandy was not subject to flood-related limits in the company’s insurance policies. The determination hinged on whether damage from storm surge was part of “named windstorm” coverage or “flood” coverage, under the... Read More

Court Finds No Insured Contract Exception To Contract Exclusion Where Indemnification Is For Policyholder’s Breach Of Warranty The Second District Appellate Court of Illinois, applying Illinois law, held that an indemnification agreement in a bill of lading was not an insured contract because the policyholder was only liable for its own breach of warranty under the agreement, not the... Read More