Insurance Update
February 18, 2020 | Robert Tugander | Greg E. Mann |Courts have been busy deciding insurance disputes. As a result, our February Insurance Update is quite robust.
Here are the headlines from this month’s update:
Whether Intentional Assault Is an “Accident” Depends on Insured’s Viewpoint, Delaware Supreme Court Rules
- Illinois Supreme Court Applies Auto Policy’s “Unambiguous” Anti-stacking Clause
- Eighth Circuit Rejects Coverage for “Dome-Outs” in Underground Storage Facility
- “Rock Fines” Discharged in Creek Are “Contaminants” for Purposes of Pollution Exclusion, Fifth Circuit Rules
- Maryland District Court Finds Coverage for Ransomware Attack Under Businessowners Policy
- Maryland Appellate Court Decides Two Insurance Coverage Issues in Lead Poisoning Case: Allocation and Interest
- Antitrust Claim Based on Fraudulently Procured Patent Does Not Fall Within “Malicious Prosecution” Coverage, California Appellate Court Says
- Exclusions Bar Coverage for TCPA and Common Law Claims, Illinois District Court Decides
- Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Highway Engineer After Multi-Vehicle Accident: Professional Error Was Not an Occurrence and Otherwise Barred by Professional Services Exclusion, Indiana Federal District Court Rules
- Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage of Suit Against Contractor on Construction Project, Texas District Court Concludes
We hope that you find these cases informative.
Rob Tugander and Greg Mann