Latest Posts › Insurance Claims

Share:

Court Holds that Ambiguity of One Endorsement Did Not Mean That Similar Endorsement Must Also Be Ambiguous

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that a retroactive date endorsement limited coverage to $1 million if a claim involved wrongful acts occurring prior...more

Exclusion for Disclosure of “Confidential or Personal Information” Bars Coverage for BIPA Claim Involving Collection and...

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, has held that an exclusion for claims arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s “confidential or personal information” bars...more

Bump-Up Provision Bars Coverage for Settlement of Post-Merger Claims by Shareholders of Target Company

On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Virginia law, has held that a bump-up provision in directors and officers liability...more

Late Notice Bars Coverage Under Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy for Claim Noticed to Insurer After Policy Period Expired

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has held that there is no coverage for a claim the insured knew about in July 2019 but failed to report to the insurer until November 2020 — after the expiration of the policy period....more

Mississippi Federal District Court Requires Insurer to Establish Prejudice to Deny Coverage Based on Untimely Notice

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, applying Mississippi law, has held that noncompliance with a 30-day notice provision in an asset protection policy does not bar coverage unless the...more

Utah Federal Court Holds That Malpractice Claim “Resulting From” Sanctions on Insured Law Firm Seeks “Damages”

A Utah federal district court, applying Utah law, has held that a malpractice action “resulting from” or “incident to” a court’s decision to assess sanctions on an insured law firm for its violation of a discovery rule...more

Capacity Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Claims for Misconduct Allegedly Motivated By Outside Capacity

A California federal district court has held that a capacity exclusion in a D&O policy did not bar coverage for a claim against insured executives alleged to have taken actions for the benefit of another company because they...more

No Coverage for Claim That “Correlates” to Claim Made Before Policy Period

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that, under Florida law, no coverage was available under a claims-made policy for a claim that “correlates” to a claim made before the policy period....more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide