Insurance Update

One of the most widely litigated issues in insurance law concerns whether a claim involves an “occurrence.” Our September Insurance Update focuses on this issue, and its close cousin, the “expected or intended” injury exclusion.

Our lead case involves a mistaken belief.  A mining company, mistaken as to a property’s boundary lines, removed coal from the wrong property. Does its mistake give rise to an “occurrence”?

A lumber retailer sold non-compliant wood to contractors. The contractors’ suit alleged false representation, concealment, and negligence.  Did the negligence allegations give rise to a duty to defend?

In assessing whether there is an “occurrence,” and a duty to defend, should the court look to just the factual allegations or both the facts and legal theories alleged?  The Eleventh Circuit weighs in.

The insured was sued for assault, but claimed that he acted in self-defense.  Was the insurer obligated to defend?

A student repeatedly punched another student in the face, breaking his jaw.  A textbook application of the “expected or intended” injury exclusion, right?  Not according to the trial court.  Did the Maine Supreme Court agree?

A teenager started a fire in the basement of his home – to harm himself, not his family.  Are his parents covered for the damage to their home?

Our update answers each of these questions.  We hope you find it informative.

Click here to read Update.