Insurance UpdateMay 17, 2019 | Robert Tugander | Greg E. Mann |
Just like the abundance of rain we’ve had so far this spring, we’ve seen a recent downpour of coverage disputes. And just like the April showers that brought us May flowers, those coverage disputes have now blossomed into some interesting decisions. Our May Insurance Update discusses some of the best picks:
- The insured sells its property – over its neighbors’ objections – to someone who uses it to house pigs. The South Dakota Supreme Court determines whether the neighbors’ suit alleges an “occurrence.”
- The insured sends out a series of faxes, mistakenly believing it had the recipients’ consent. The 11th Circuit decides whether there was an “accident” for coverage purposes.
- The insured is accused of negligently designing and building a grain storage facility. A Missouri federal district court considers whether these deficiencies were caused by an “occurrence.”
- A policy’s “occurrence” definition has an aggregation clause. Applying that language to asbestos exposure claims, an Illinois appellate court considers how many “occurrences” there are and whether the claims are to be grouped by location.
- When can an insurer rely on extrinsic evidence to terminate a duty to defend? An Ohio appellate court provides guidance.
- Is there “collapse” coverage for cracked walls that still stand? The 2nd Circuit decides.
- Does the pollution exclusion bar coverage for defective shipments of recycled fat? What about a claim for ammonia exposure? Courts within the Eighth Circuit weigh in.
We hope that you find these cases informative. Enjoy the May flowers.
- Robert Tugander
- Greg E. Mann