Former Parent Cannot Cut Off Former Subsidiaries’ Coverage Via Settlement – Travelers Ordered to Defend The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Gettleman, applying Illinois law, held that Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (together “Travelers”) must defend Magnetek, Inc. (“Magnetek”), the successor to policies issued by... Read More

No Breach of Contract for Excess Carrier’s Failure to Settle Despite $45M Verdict The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, applying Florida law, held that neither the cooperation clause nor the duty to defend includes a duty to settle.  Therefore, the district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the breach of contract claims against it for... Read More

Intoxication Exclusion Not Void Against Public Policy in Excess Liability Policy The Illinois Second District Appellate Court, applying Illinois law, in an opinion by Justice Schostok, reversed a lower court ruling that found an excess policy’s intoxication exclusion was unenforceable because it was against public policy.  Instead, the appellate court reasoned that, because excess coverage is not required by Illinois law, an excess policy’s intoxication... Read More

.Attorney’s Lien Dispute Neither a “Suit” nor “Damages” under Professional Liability Policy The Illinois First District Appellate Court, applying Illinois law, in an opinion by Justice Harris, reversed a lower court’s decision and found that Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company (“ISBA Mutual”) had no duty to defend its insured, attorney Mark McNabola, against a motion to adjudicate... Read More

No Temporal Limitation in “As Reported” Exclusion The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Barrett, applying Indiana law, reversed the district court and entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer.  The Seventh Circuit found the “as reported” language in the policy at issue precluded coverage for the underlying lawsuit, because an exclusion covered all notices of claims reported to the insured’s... Read More

As a Distributor, Amazon Not Liable for Defective Product The Fourth Circuit, applying Maryland law, upheld a district court ruling that held Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) was not liable for a house fire allegedly caused by a lamp sold on its website because, as related to this product, Amazon was only a distributor, not a seller. In the underlying case, a defective lamp purchased on Amazon’s... Read More

Violation of 30/90-Day “Accident” Notice Requirement Bars Coverage Despite No Prejudice The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held that QBE Marine & Energy (“QBE”), a syndicate of Lloyd’s of London, was not liable for the cleanup costs its insured, Apollo Energy, LLC (“Apollo”), spent on an oil spill due to applicable pollution exclusion found in QBE’s CGL policy. In 2016,... Read More

Employee’s Sexual Assault against Three Separate Women Constitutes Single Occurrence A unanimous Sixth Circuit panel, applying Ohio law, held that three sexual assault claims by three separate women against an employee of The Scott Fetzer Company (“Fetzer”), represented a single occurrence under Fetzer’s general liability policies. In so doing, the court reversed the lower court decision that held each instance of sexual assault was... Read More

Pollution Exclusion Bars Insurer v. Insurer Contribution Claim The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, applying Missouri law, held that a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion can exclude coverage for asbestos related claims even when the exclusion does not expressly include asbestos. In the underlying case, the insured, Anheuser-Busch, LLC (“A-B”), was sued by the widow of a former employee who alleged... Read More