Illinois Appellate Court 1) Upholds Broad Duty To Defend When No Dates Of Exposure Alleged And “Group Pleading” Used, And 2) Applies “All Sums” Allocation To Defense Expenses. An Illinois appellate court, applying Illinois law, upheld a trial court ruling that insurers had a duty to defend Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LCC (collectively “Illinois Tool”) for thousands... Read More

Interprets Completed Operations Clause Narrowly And Finds Exclusion Applicable Under Michigan Rather Than Indiana Law After Choice Of Law Analysis The Seventh Circuit, applying Michigan law, found no exception to a pollution exclusion and refused to hold insurer liable for millions in clean up and litigation costs for pollution from an Indiana manufacturing plant. The insured, Visteon Corp. (“Visteon”), a... Read More

California Appellate Court Reinstates Case Finding 1) Settlement With Other Insurers Doesn’t Preclude Recovery, And 2) Denial Of Insurer’s Summary Judgment Motion Doesn’t Necessarily Establish Defense Duty A California appeals court, applying California law, reversed and remanded a lower court ruling which had entered judgment in favor of the insurer in a coverage suit between McMillin Companies, LLC (“McMillin”), a... Read More

Insurer Not Liable Under Texas Law After Judge Requires Strict Compliance With Notice Requirement A Texas magistrate judge, applying Texas law, found Hallmark Collection of Homes, LLC (“Hallmark Collection”), a bankrupt homebuilder, did not provide its insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Co. (“Mid-Continent), adequate notice of a lawsuit and, therefore, Mid-Continent did not have to pay its share of a $63... Read More

“Insured Versus Insured” Exclusion Does Not Require Collusiveness An Illinois federal court, applying Illinois law, held that based on the clear and unambiguous language of the applicable insurance policy, an “Insured Versus Insured” exclusion in a directors and officers’ liability policy barred coverage in a lawsuit filed by the named insured against another insured. Moreover, the court found that Illinois... Read More

“Insured v. Insured” Exclusion Ambiguous The Eleventh Circuit, applying Georgia law, overturned a lower court’s decision and ruled that an “Insured Versus Insured” exclusion was ambiguous with regard to a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) against former bank officers because other courts had interpreted similar language in varying ways. The court also held that extrinsic... Read More

Policyholder’s Request To Select Counsel Not A Breach of Duty To Cooperate Two California federal courts, applying California law, dismissed virtually identical claims brought by certain insurers against Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corp. (“Centex”).  The Central District Court held that the insurers failed to show Centex had breached its duty to cooperate based on asserting its choice... Read More

“No Drop Down” Endorsement Does Not Bar Insured From Aggregating Asbestos Claims A Pennsylvania federal court, applying Ohio law, found as a matter of law that certain umbrella insurance policies were merely clarified by subsequent “No Drop Down” endorsements and that the language of the umbrella policies did not prevent the insured from aggregating multiple asbestos bodily injury claims into... Read More