Security Insurance Prevails in Pandemic Restaurant Closure Case Because No “Physical Loss” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, applying Wisconsin law, held state-mandated closures of in-person dining did not amount to direct physical “loss” of or “damage” to insureds’ properties; the closure did not amount to direct physical “loss” of or “damage” to property other than that of insured; and the... Read More

No Life Insurance Benefits for Overdose The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Rowland, applying federal law, held that a decedent’s lethal overdose of cocaine and fentanyl did not trigger coverage under an Accidental Death & Dismemberment (“AD&D”) provision in an employee health plan. Specifically, the District Court found that... Read More

Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Prove Duty to Defend and Bad Faith The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, applying Washington law, held that a “clear and convincing” standard for establishing the material terms of a lost insurance policy can be met by strong circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the District Court held that the insurer’s refusal to defend... Read More

Insurer Must Make Reasonable Efforts to Secure Cooperation The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, in an opinion written by Justice Gordon, applying Illinois law, held that an insurer had not adequately demonstrated that it had made reasonable efforts to secure the cooperation of the insured regarding its investigation into a workers compensation claim. As such, the Appellate Court reversed... Read More

Hostile/Warlike Action Exclusion Not Applicable to Russian Cyber Attack The Superior Court of New Jersey, applying New Jersey law, granted summary judgment to the insured, Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”), holding that the Hostile/Warlike Action Exclusion in Merck’s all-risk policy did not bar coverage for losses resulting from a 2017 cyber-attack. Merck suffered losses totaling more than $1.4 billion due... Read More

Retro Date Applies to Bar Coverage Because Emissions Not Separate “Pollution Conditions” The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, in an opinion written by Justice Zenoff, applying Illinois law, affirmed an order of the circuit court of Lake County granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff, Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”). The insured, Medline Industries, Inc.... Read More

Policyholder May Select Which Concurrent Excess Insurer Must Pay Indemnity Post-Settlement, Summarizing Existing Liberal IL Selective Tender Rights The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Alonso, applying Illinois law, upheld an insured’s right to “target tender” to a particular insurer to pay a settlement. In the instant case, two insurers—Acuity... Read More

Charlie Philbrick Joins Hoke LLC as Partner: “Charlie’s Long Record of Successful Policyholder Recoveries is a Perfect Fit with the Hoke Team. Read More » N.D. Ill / BIPA: ERP Exclusion Bars Coverage for BIPA Allegations Against McDonald’s Operator. Read More » COVID CASE TRACKER: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Six Claims. Read More » IL App 1st / Misrepresentation:... Read More

Products and Completed Operations Hazard Exclusion Doesn’t Bar Take-Home Asbestos Case The Court of Appeals of South Carolina, applying South Carolina law, affirmed the circuit court’s order granting partial summary judgment to the insured, Covil Corporation, holding that the insurer, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Penn”), owed coverage for take-home asbestos exposure claims. Covil, now defunct and acting through... Read More