Insurance Update

We bring you our March Insurance Update.

As college basketball programs embark on the road to the final four, we select our top four insurance cases from the past month.

In a dispute over the priority of coverage, the New Jersey Supreme Court weighs in on whether a city’s membership in a joint insurance fund qualifies as “other insurance.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court provides some guidance on the application of interpretive rules and burden of proof issues in a dispute over a business pursuits exclusion rooted in a kidnapping claim.

Homeowners and their insurers don’t always agree on the amount of loss.  When that’s the case,  the homeowner’s policy may call for the selection of a disinterested appraiser.  The Florida Supreme Court explains when an appraiser is truly “disinterested.”

California has an implied exclusion for willful acts – § 533 – that is read into all California insurance policies.  A county argued that § 533 did not apply where it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Sheriff’s Department.  But the Ninth Circuit wasn’t buying it.

We hope you find these cases informative.  And we hope you made informed decisions when filling out your bracket.

Rob Tugander and Greg Mann