One commentator has called the scope of Additional Insured coverage “[o]ne of the oldest and most confounding debates in the insurance world.” Another chapter was written the other day in Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Preferred...more
An Illinois General Contractor learned a hard lesson the other day; the case is Vivify Constr., LLC v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 170192.
The General Contractor, Vivify Construction, subcontracted part of the job...more
We have noted, again and again, examples of disappointed Additional Insureds. Today we report that at least one Additional Insured has left the Courthouse smiling. It was, however, to paraphrase Wellington, a near-run...more
We’ve chronicled some of the ways in which an “Additional Insured” can be disappointed. The most recent is from Pennsylvania, where the United States District Court Judge agreed with the Magistrate that the Additional...more
We’ve used this headline before. We’ll almost certainly use it again. The case this time, just handed down by the New York Court of Appeals, is Burlington Insurance Co. v. NYC Transit Authority....more
The Washington Supreme Court just handed a defeat to Washington State liability insurers, holding that ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company had a duty to defend a carbon monoxide poisoning case, notwithstanding a broad...more
The latest round in the fight over the CGL’s “pollution exclusion” — which well-respected commentator Craig F. Stanovich has called “one of the least understood and most litigated portions” of the CGL — went to the insurance...more
Readers of Law360 may recall a 2014 story about a Texas jury that rendered a $34 million dollar verdict against OneBeacon Insurance Company. According to Law360, the Jury found that OneBeacon “knowingly failed to attempt, in...more
“This insurance,” the policy clearly stated, “does not apply to . . . punitive damages. . . .” And yet the carriers will be paying the entire judgment entered in Lompe v. Sunridge Partners, LLC, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1252, 1271 (D....more