The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter

MOLD EXCLUSION

American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Victory Highlands Condo. Ass’n, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3128 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., Dec. 26, 2024)

New Jersey appeals court concludes that claims by a condominium resident alleging injury from indoor exposure to mold did not fall within a “consumption” exception to mold exclusions^* in CGL policies where the resident demonstrated only that mold was present on his food and not that he was injured by eating mold on the food. It reasoned that, if the resident needed to prove only that there was mold on his food, and not that he ... Continue Reading

After almost two years' deliberation, the First Circuit last week issued its long-awaited decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Tocci Bldg. Corp.^[1]: affirming on other grounds, and leaving in place a district court decision that found subcontracted faulty work was not an "occurrence" and did not lead to covered “property damage” under Massachusetts law.

The decision leaves Massachusetts among a number of states where general contractors should not expect coverage from their commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for damage falling within the contractor’s scope of work.Continue Reading

ARBITRATION

S.K.A.V., L.L.C. v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co., 103 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2024)

Fifth Circuit predicts that, as amended, a Louisiana statute (Revised Statute § 22:868)* prohibiting certain insurance contracts from depriving courts there of “the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer” would void an arbitration provision in a surplus lines policy. According to the court, it was “settled” that arbitration agreements were unenforceable under statute until a 2020 amendment (Subsection (D)) authorized surplus lines insurers to include forum and ... Continue Reading

CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024)

Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by ... Continue Reading

Weighing in on an issue that has divided courts nationwide, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that an insurer under Massachusetts law has no right to recoup defense costs, or amounts the insurer pays in settlement – even if the insurer reserves rights prior to payment and obtains a ruling, after the fact, that no defense or indemnity was owed. Berkley Natl. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, No. 22-1959, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (1st Cir. Feb 22, 2024) (“Granite Telecomm"). However, the First Circuit rested its ruling on narrow procedural grounds ... Continue Reading

The United States Supreme Court agreed today to review a Fourth Circuit decision that denied an insurer standing to object to an asbestos producer’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan, on the basis that the insurer’s interests were not affected by the plan. The case provides the high court with an opportunity to resolve a recurring issue in mass tort bankruptcies which has split the circuits.

The appeal arises out of the Chapter 11 case of Kaiser Gypsum, filed in North Carolina. Kaiser Gypsum’s plan proposed that an asbestos claim trust would be assigned the debtor’s rights ... Continue Reading

DEFENSE COST REIMBURSEMENT

Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Winder Labs., LLC, 73 F.4th 934 (11th Cir. 2023)

Eleventh Circuit predicts that, under Georgia law, insurers found to have no duty to defend underlying suits could not recoup defense costs from their insureds pursuant to a reservation of rights (ROR) where the GL policies at issue did not provide for reimbursement. The court concluded that the reimbursement provision in the insurers’ ROR letters was not supported by new consideration (since the policies already required the insurers to defend certain suits) and thus did not create a ... Continue Reading

On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits ... Continue Reading

DUTY TO DEFEND – EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE

Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v. Ebensburg Ins. Agency, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14528 (3d Cir. June 9, 2023)

Third Circuit questions, but declines to decide, whether Pennsylvania’s “four corners” rule permits an insurer under a claims-made professional liability insurance policy to terminate its defense of the insured based on extrinsic evidence unrelated to the merits of the underlying liability case. Quoting Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore, 228 A.3d 258 (Pa. 2020), the court explained that, although Pennsylvania law provides that an ... Continue Reading

White and Williams recently obtained summary judgment against an insured on behalf of an insurer and a guarantor, establishing that two multi-year insurance policies provide per occurrence limits on a per policy rather than a per year basis, which shielded potential exposure by over $100 million.

The insured had previously sought and obtained coverage under two policies in connection with a single occurrence arising out of massive environmental contamination claims involving a large industrial site. The issue of whether the policies provide per occurrence limits on a policy ... Continue Reading