Tag: Commercial General Liability

365 Days Later: Lessons Learned from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

One year ago today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the first two of four important insurance-coverage law opinions that it would hand down in 2014 and 2015. Those four decisions – which address a number of topics including insurer bad faith, trigger of coverage, policy exclusions, and settlements and reservations of rights – significantly impacted … Continue Reading

Eastern District of New York ultimately arrives at right outcome when interpreting “Employer’s Liability” exclusion in CGL policy

In Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company, No. 14-cv-6203 (ADS)(AKT) (Oct. 30, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York correctly determined that an “Employer’s Liability” exclusion in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy only applied and precluded coverage when an insured is sued by its own employee(s) and not … Continue Reading

PA Policyholders May Find Road Blocks In Obtaining Coverage For Misappropriation of Advertising Ideas under CGL Policies

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling that may make it more difficult for Pennsylvania policyholders to obtain coverage for the misappropriation of advertising ideas under standard commercial general liability policies. In The Hanover Insurance Company v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 14-3705 (Oct. 23, 2015), the Third Circuit … Continue Reading

Insurers Beware: Respond Promptly or Lose the Right to Control the Defense

The tables may be turning. Insurers often seek to avoid their coverage obligations by invoking time limitations in their policies for providing claim notifications. On the other hand, these same insurers routinely take their sweet time in responding to claims, contending that they need time to “investigate” even before making a decision whether or not to … Continue Reading

If not “determinative,” then at least compelling: Other, specific exclusionary language available on market undermines application of pollution exclusion

Recently, in a non-precedential order, an Illinois appellate court correctly held that a “Pollution and Health Hazard Exclusion” in a commercial general liability policy did not preclude coverage for mold-related bodily injury claims. See In re Liquidation of Legion Indem. Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 140452-U (Sept. 30, 2015) (applying Texas law). That court held, … Continue Reading

Host of insurance-coverage questions tied to Legionnaires’ disease

A recent outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in New York has, according to published news reports, been responsible for the death of 12 people. According to those same reports, more than 100 other people have become ill as a result of the outbreak, which has been traced to a rooftop cooling tower(s). For better or worse, … Continue Reading

The California Supreme Court Issues Its Landmark Decision in Fluor

On August 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Fluor v. Superior Court, overruling its prior holding in Henkel Corp. v Hartford, which precluded successor entities from tapping into their predecessors’ insurance assets for inherited long-tail liabilities.  In Henkel, the Court held that a contractual assignment of insurance assets in a corporate … Continue Reading

It Means What It Says: Federal Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer Attempt to Read Limitations Into Additional Insured Endorsement

In the world of insurance coverage litigation, insurance companies like to accuse policyholders of attempting to expand coverage terms, or limit the scope of exclusions, beyond the language’s plain meaning. “The policy means what it says,” is a common refrain insurers use to justify coverage denials. However, a recent decision by the federal Fourth Circuit … Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Politsopoulos represents victory for policyholders across Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a long-awaited decision in Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. Politsopoulos, No. J-85-2014, delivering the insured in that case, and policyholders across Pennsylvania, a big victory. As explained more fully in Reed Smith’s recent Client Alert – “’The” insured versus “any” insured: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court limits the application of … Continue Reading