Insurance Update
October 12, 2017 | Robert Tugander |Our Insurance Update for October covers several topics.
We begin with a pair of state high court decisions. One addresses the elements of a bad faith action in Pennsylvania. The other, from Nevada, serves as a reminder to insurers that cancellation notices must follow the letter of the law.
We also discuss a pair of cases involving claims against mall owners. One concerns knockoff sunglasses and whether the mall’s advertising injury coverage protects it against a contributory trademark infringement claim. The other concerns an alleged scheme to overcharge tenants for electricity and whether the suit alleged negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the rendering of professional services.
The number of limits available is the key issue in a third pair of cases. The Eleventh Circuit found that the repackaging of contaminated eye medication involved a single claim, whereas a federal district court in New Jersey found multiple occurrences for claims against a waste hauler.
Our final pair involves exclusions: the pollution exclusion and the personal profit exclusion. The pollution case centers on the reliability of the policyholder’s expert’s opinion and how it was insufficient to create an issue of fact for summary judgment purposes. The personal profit case arises from a school’s unauthorized issuance of bonds.
We hope you find these cases informative.
Click here to read the Update.
