Insurance Law News

Insurance Law Bulletin

As a free service to clients, prospective clients and other interested persons, we publish the Insurance Law Bulletin, a newsletter that provides concise summaries of recent legislation and appellate decisions.
Newsletter Sign-up | Newsletter Example (HTML) | Subscribe to Feed

Recent Rulings and Legislation

June 2008

• Engineer’s Design Errors Are Not “Defective Methods In Construction” And Do Not Trigger Collapse Coverage
• Letter From Claimant’s Attorney To Insured Is “Claim” Under “Claims Made And Reported” Policy
• If Insurer’s Reservation Of Rights Triggers Insured’s Right To “Independent Counsel,” Any Dispute Regarding Independent Counsel’s Fees Must Be Arbitrated, Even If Insurer Does Not Retain “Panel Counsel”
• Uninsured Motorist Coverage: California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction In UM/UIM Cases

May 2008

• “Cross-Suits” Exclusion Relieves Insurer of Duty to Defend Named Insured Against Suit Brought by Additional Insured
• Because Appraisal Panel Only Decided “Amount” of Loss, Court Could Confirm Amount of Award but Could Not Enter Money Judgment
• Third-Party Claimant Not Entitled to Intervene in Insurer’s Declaratory Relief Action Against Insured

April 2008

• Where Policy Covers "Personal Injury" Caused By "Accident," Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Insured Against Suit Alleging "Intentional" False Imprisonment
• Excess Insurer Has No Duty to Pay Where Insured Settles With Primary Insurer For Less Than Primary Policy’s Limits
• Ninth Circuit Finds a Duty to Defend Lawsuits Filed Against a Rock Band Musician and Related Corporation
• Property Insurance: "Absolute" Mold Exclusion Ruling Stands, Per California Supreme Court

March 2008

• Insured’s “Unintentional” But “Material” Misrepresentations in Application Give Marine Insurer Right to Rescind
• Insured Only Required to Exhaust Tortfeasor’s Motor Vehicle or Automobile Bodily Injury Liability Coverage Before Seeking Underinsured Motorist Coverage
• California Supreme Court Watch: Property and casualty insurance cases currently pending in the California Supreme Court

February 2008

• “Absolute” Mold Exclusion is Valid, Even Though Covered Water Damage is Predominant Cause of Mold
• “Pollution” Exclusion Bars Coverage For Liability Arising From Insured’s Release Of Solvent Into Public Sewer System
• Absent Prejudice, Insurer May Be Liable for Default Judgment Against Insured Arising From Insured’s Breach of Notice Clause

January 2008

• Homeowners Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Woman Who Allegedly Failed to Prevent Husband from Molesting Daughter
• Defamation Suit Against Insured Does Not Allege “Occurrence” Under Homeowners Policy
• General Liability Insurer Properly Denies Defense Under Non-Standard Additional Insured Endorsement
• Insurer’s Misrepresentation of Policy Limits to Induce Settlement Subjects Insurer to Liability for Fraud
• Bad Faith: “Genuine Issue” Rule Negates Bad Faith Claim Only If Insurer Demonstrates It Conducted Thorough Investigation

December 2007

2007 Annual Review of California Insurance Law (PDF)

Download Free Adobe Reader program

November 2007

• Misrepresentations on Application Allow Liability Insurer to Rescind Policy and Obtain Reimbursement of Defense/Settlement Costs
• Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Insured’s Liability for Odors and Dust Emanating from Compost Facility
• Primary Auto Insurer Entitled to Contribution from Excess Auto Insurer for Defense Fees Pursuant to Insurance Code Section 11580.9(g)
• California Wildfires: Mudslide Damage May Be Covered if Fire is Predominant Cause of Loss

October 2007

• Insurer Must Defend Insured in Assault and Battery Case Where Insured’s Agent Might Have Acted in “Self-Defense”
• Insurer Who Covers Property Manager as Additional Insured is Entitled to Contribution from Insurer Who Covers Property Manager as Named Insured
• Sums Paid In Settlement of Pollution Claims Are Not “Damages” Under Excess Policies
• California Wildfires: Declared “State of Emergency” Triggers Insurance Code Sections

September 2007

• Auto Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Shuttle Company in Suit Arising from Employee’s Sexual Assault of Passenger
• Auto Exclusions in CGL Policy Covering Special Event Do Not Eliminate Insurer’s Duty to Defend
• Where Two UM Policies Have Different Limits, Pro-Rata Provision in One Policy Controls Over Excess Provision in Other Policy
• Bad Faith: Insured Can Recover Attorney Fees Incurred Because of Insurer’s Unsuccessful Appeal

August 2007

• No UM Benefits Due When Vehicle Owner and Operator are Covered by Personal Umbrella Policy
• Policy Issued in Texas But to Be Performed in California Must Be Interpreted Under California Law; Duty to Defend Found
• Foreclosures: Lender Insurance Claims Require Understanding of “Credit Bid” Rules

July 2007

• Where Two Insureds Have Separate Policies Covering Same Property, Each Insurer Must Pay Only Part of Loss
• “Development/Construction Exclusion” Applies Only If Insured—Not Another Party—Engages in Excluded Activity
• California Supreme Court Watch

News Archives

Top of Page