We bring you our August Insurance Update.

Mental state, in some form, is the common theme running through our first three cases this month.

The Fifth Circuit decides whether directors and officers of an ice cream company, accused of breaching their fiduciary duties to shareholders, were entitled to a defense under the company’s CGL policy. 

During this past term, the Court of Appeals decided a number of important insurance law questions and cases involving insurance carriers that established precedents for insurers and for other parties. The opinions of the Court in the four cases discussed here were written by different judges. Moreover, three were unanimous and reversed the rulings below.

Southern District Holds That Contractor’s Carrier Has Duty To Defend ConEd Even Though Contractor’s Work Ended Months Before The Accident

 A pedestrian tripped and fell on a Bronx sidewalk, and she sued the owner of the adjacent property. In turn, the owner brought a third-party action against ConEd, the utility company that had opened

We bring you our July Insurance Update.

We begin with two cases about late notice.  First, the Kentucky Supreme Court considers whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to claims-made-and-reported policies.  Second, the Ninth Circuit provides an example of when prejudice can be determined as a matter of law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court addresses the contours of

Second Circuit Finds That Subcontract Did Not Incorporate GC’s Obligation To Obtain Additional Insured Coverage For Owners And That GC’s Primary Policy Was Primary To GC’s Additional Insured Coverage Under Sub’s Umbrella

The owners hired a general contractor (GC) insured by Amerisure to build a movie theatre, and the GC hired a masonry subcontractor (Sub)

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

• A trial court in New York has dismissed a negligence action against a title company brought by a developer, ruling that the only entity to which the title company owed a duty was the

Courts took up some interesting insurance questions this past month.  Here’s some we address in our June Insurance Update.

When a government sponsored cyberattack infects computers worldwide, does the war exclusion apply?

A professional liability policy will often pay the insured’s costs of responding to subpoenas or disciplinary proceedings.  What about search warrants?

People pay

Fourth Department Holds That Ensuing Loss Exception To Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Applies To Restore Coverage For Water Loss

The insureds owned a house covered by an all-risk homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Erie Insurance Company of New York that provided coverage for damage to the house unless specifically excluded.  The policy contained an exclusion for

Additional insureds and applications.  That’s our main theme this month.

Additional insured disputes can sometimes get complicated.  How much coverage the additional insured gets is often a hotly contested issue, especially when the named insured has coverage above the minimum limits it promised to get for the additional insured.  We see different outcomes on this

Second Circuit Holds That Absolute Auto Exclusion Clearly Precludes Coverage

The insureds, a country club and motorcycle group, held an annual motorcycle rally.  They were sued by two motorcycle riders who were struck by an automobile as the riders and automobile were entering the premises of the club to attend the rally.  Covington Specialty denied