Insurance UpdateAugust 9, 2017 | Robert Tugander |
We bring you our Insurance Update for August.
We lead off this month’s issue with a cybercrime case decided by a Michigan federal district court. The case arises out of a spoof email and the issue is whether the loss was directly caused by the use of a computer. A handful of cases involving similar facts have made their way around the courts with differing results. Coverage will depend on the particular policy language at issue.
Next, we’ve included two cases in this month’s issue addressing the professional services exclusion – one involving a pipeline explosion, the other involving a Ponzi scheme. The cases get into the meaning of “professional services” and the scope of the exclusion.
Two mainstays of our newsletter – pollution exclusions and faulty workmanship – are also featured this month. A Pennsylvania appellate court considers whether the total pollution exclusion bars coverage for claims arising from exposure to chlorine gas. Meanwhile, the Tenth Circuit decides whether a contractor’s faulty workmanship amounts to an “occurrence.”
We close out our newsletter with a TCPA case from Colorado. There, a federal district court decides whether an exclusion bars coverage for a suit based on unsolicited faxes.
Click here to read the Update.