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

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

Welcome to CICR’s annual recap of insurance cases you should know about — and others in the pipeline to watch. You can read about our selections for “Cases to Know” and “Cases to Watch” below.

In the last year, we saw COVID-related business interruption disputes continue to dominate the insurance coverage landscape. According to the University of Pennsylvania’s COVID Coverage Litigation Tracker, trial courts have already issued 750+ merits rulings on motions in these cases. The results have overwhelmingly favored insurers. As one court put it, there is “[a]n ... Continue Reading

ARBITRATION

Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 2020 Md. LEXIS 174 (Md. Apr. 3, 2020)

Maryland’s highest court adopts pro rata allocation for asbestos-related bodily injury claims under liability policies. The court began by explaining that injury spanning many years often implicates multiple policies and therefore implicates a continuous or injury-in-fact trigger under Maryland law. Adopting the reasoning of Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 802 A.2d 1070 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002), app. dismissed, 821 A.2d 369 (Md ... Continue Reading