Duane Morris’ Cyndie M. Chang, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, will be speaking at the American Bar Association (ABA) Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section’s spring conference, “Resolution of Property Insurance Claims in the Modern Age-Appraisal, Mediation and Arbitration,” which will be held on April 24-26, 2014, at the Park Hyatt Aviara in Carlsbad, California. Ms. Chang will participate in a panel discussion on “Mock Mediation of a Property Insurance Claim: Focusing on Preparation as the Key to Success” on Thursday, April 24, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
NY Court of Appeals Revisits Controversial K2 Decision
The New York State Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) has agreed to hear re-argument on K2 Investment Group LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 1461 (N.Y. June 11, 2013). In K2, the Court held that a liability insurer that declined to provide a defense to its insured on the basis that the liability alleged was not covered might waive all policy defenses if it was later held that a defense should have been supplied.
Continue reading “NY Court of Appeals Revisits Controversial K2 Decision”
In Pair of Cases, 5th Circuit Enforces 30-Day Notice Requirement in Pollution Exclusion Buy-Back Clauses; No Prejudice Need be Shown
In two separate cases – one under Texas law and one under Louisiana law – the Fifth Circuit has reinforced the principle that a 30-day notice provision in a pollution exclusion buy-back clause is strictly enforceable, and an insurer does not need to demonstrate prejudice to deny coverage. In these cases, the Court found that this outcome was consistent with the Court’s prior decision in Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 1999), and the Court found that this principle of enforceability was not changed by subsequent notice-prejudice cases.
Exhausting Policy Limits When Settling Less than All Lawsuits
In his latest article, Thomas R. Newman explains his thoughts on handling multiple claims with insufficient limits to cover an insured’s total potential exposure, when not all of the claims are settled.
Mr. Newman practices in the areas of insurance and reinsurance law, including coverage, claims handling, contract drafting and arbitration and litigation. He has served as lead counsel in more than 55 reinsurance arbitrations, representing both cedents and reinsurers. He is often called upon to act as an expert witness in insurance cases in the United States and in London.
To read this article, please click here.
San Francisco Trial Court Is First California Court To Adopt The Wallace & Gale Approach To Asbestos Operations Claims
In what is the first trial court ruling in California on the issue, to our knowledge, the San Francisco Superior Court on January 31, 2013 issued a ruling adopting the Wallace & Gale approach to the completed operations issue for asbestos claims. The decision was issued by San Francisco Superior Court Judge John E. Munter in Phase III of Plant Insulation Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., et al., a multi-phase declaratory relief action pending in San Francisco.
London Market Insurers Prevail Against BP in Insurance Buyback Dispute
The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a judgment that certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and certain London market insurance companies (London Market Insurers) were entitled to consider all subsidiaries as part of an insurance buyback agreement they had with one of the world’s largest oil companies. On September 13, 2012, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. BP America, Inc., et al., Case No. A132298. At issue was more than $1 billion in liability insurance placed by the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in the London insurance market.
Continue reading “London Market Insurers Prevail Against BP in Insurance Buyback Dispute”
The California Court of Appeal Says Nice Try To Attempt to Overturn The California Supreme Court’s Henkel Decision Based on an 1872 Statute
On August 30, 2012, Division Three of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District put to rest a new argument devised by policyholders to attack the California Supreme Court’s seminal consent-to-assignment ruling in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 29 Cal.4th 934 (2003). See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Slip Opn. dated Aug. 30, 2012) (Fourth Dist. No. G045579)
The Fluor case involved the same consent-to-assignment clause at issue in Henkel: “Assignment of interest under this policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon.” (See Henkel, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 943.) Continue reading “The California Court of Appeal Says Nice Try To Attempt to Overturn The California Supreme Court’s Henkel Decision Based on an 1872 Statute”
State of California v. Continental Insurance
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in the State of California v. Continental Insurance case on August 9. In a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, the Court held that the policy language at issue provides for “all sums” allocation and permits stacking of policy limits.
The Court’s opinion reflects a focus on the particular insurance policy wording at issue. In its first holding, the opinion states: “Under the CGL policies here, the plain ‘all sums’ language of the agreement compels the insurers to pay ‘all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay. . . for damages . . . because of injury to or destruction of property ….” The Court went on to hold that the policy language before it “does not limit the policies’ promise to pay ‘all sums’ of the policyholder’s liability solely to sums or damage ‘during the policy period.’”
Continue reading “State of California v. Continental Insurance”
Any Friendly Wagers on Outcome of State of California v. Continental Ins.?
As you may be aware, the California Supreme Court heard argument in the State of California case on May 30th. (See Bill Baron’s May 4, 2012 posting to this site.) I’ve entered into a wager with my partner and insurance guru, Phil Matthews, on the outcome of State of California, which should decide two very important insurance coverage questions in California: (1) all sums; and (2) stacking of policy limits. I won’t reveal our respective wagers, and recognizing that predicting the outcome of an appellate court is not exactly a science, I invite you to email me with your prediction as to the outcome of this case. Continue reading “Any Friendly Wagers on Outcome of State of California v. Continental Ins.?”
California Federal Court Finds No Conflict with Allegedly Competing Other Insurance Clauses
A California federal court recently issued a summary judgment ruling after interpreting two “other insurance” clauses in California State Automobile Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57996 (N.D. Cal, April 25, 2012). One insurer argued that the “other insurance” clauses conflicted with each other, but the Court disagreed and found no conflict where one other insurance clause specifically provided for excess coverage in certain circumstances.
The policyholder had a homeowner’s insurance policy with California State Automobile Inter-Insurance Bureau (“AAA”) and a watercraft policy with Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”). Both issued liability limits of $500,000.