We roll out our December Insurance Update just in time for the holidays.

Here’s what’s inside:

• The California Supreme Court discusses rules of policy construction in the context of a TCPA claim against Yahoo.
• A Minnesota federal judge considers data breach coverage for wire transfers to a fraudulent account.
• A Massachusetts federal court weighs

Court Finds That Defense Documents Must Be Produced Because Placed “At Issue” by Late Notice

In this declaratory judgment action, American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company sought insurance coverage on behalf of its insured contractor from certain excess insurers.  The excess insurers were not placed on notice until six years after the filing of the

Our November Insurance Update covers several topics.

We’ve seen cases on whether contractors who repair homes can recover directly from insurers through assignments.  The Nebraska Supreme Court now considers whether a policyholder can assign to a non-policyholder a cause of action for first-party bad faith.

The Delaware Supreme Court is the latest

Southern District Finds That Insured’s Owner And CEO Not Entitled To SUM Coverage Because Not Acting In Scope Of His Duties For Insured

Majestic Rayon Corporation, a family business that manages the family’s real estate, obtained an insurance policy from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company that included supplementary uninsured/ under-insured motorists (“SUM”) coverage for any

Kidnapping, treasure hunts, insurgents shooting down airplanes  — sounds like the Fall TV lineup.  But no, it’s our October Insurance Update.

And in honor of the month’s most treasured sporting event, the Fall Classic, we roll out a lineup of nine sluggers that will bring you up to date on what’s happened in the world

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Title Reporter: A Legal Update for the Title Insurance Industry

• A federal district court in New York has rejected a lawsuit filed by insureds under a title insurance policy demanding indemnification for the ostensible diminution in their insured property’s value stemming from an

Court Finds That Named Insured “Executed” Contract With Additional Insured, Triggering Duty To Defend

Stoncor, a flooring systems manufacturer, sent Surfacesys a proposed Master Installation Agreement to become an exclusive floor installation contractor. The Agreement required that Surfacesys list Stoncor as an insured on its insurance.   The Agreement was returned to Stoncor via fax purportedly

Some important insurance decisions were handed down over the past month.

We begin in Ohio, where public nuisance claims by state and local governments over opioids and lead paint were on full display.  In Acuity, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the opioid suits were not brought “because of bodily injury.”  A week earlier, the

Michael Kotula and Robert Maloney published the article, “The Value of Risk Transfer Consulting in Real Estate Transactions and Construction Projects,” in the Fall 2022 issue of USLAW Magazine.

The article discusses the nuances of the liability and insurance coverage issues that go along with risk transfers.

Read the full article here.

When defendants are sued in state court, one of the first things defense attorneys will usually consider is whether the case is removable, and if so, whether it should be removed.

A recent practice, spurred by case law, has allowed defendants in some jurisdictions to remove to federal court. This is particularly a concern in