Exception to Special Hazards Exclusion Does Not Affirmatively Create Coverage for Pollution The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, applying Massachusetts law, granted summary judgement in favor of an insurer and held that a Total Pollution Exclusion barred coverage.  The insured argued that the policy was ambiguous due to an exception to a Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation exclusion, and thus,... Read More

No Coverage for Parking Lot Shooting No defense or indemnity obligations for negligence claims related to parking lot shooting due to exclusion for injuries “arising out of” “assault,” “battery”, or “physical altercation.” The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a policyholder in an... Read More

“Collapse” in Homeowners’ Policy Requires Proof of Imminent Danger of Residence Falling Down  In a trio of opinions, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the “substantial impairment” standard for the term “collapse” requires proof of imminent danger of the home falling down.   Moreover, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a home’s “foundation” unambiguously includes the basement walls of the... Read More

No “Property Damage” or “Bodily Injury” Alleged  The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion by Judge Ronald A. Guzman, applying Illinois law, held that an insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured for a lawsuit related to adding hidden charges to vending machine transactions.  The underlying lawsuit did not contain allegations that... Read More

Broker Did Not Have Apparent Authority to Accept Notice on Behalf of Excess Insurer  The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Chief Judge Wood, applying Illinois law, upheld the District Court’s ruling that due to the policyholder’s failure to provide prompt notice, the excess insurer was not liable to pay any part of a $2.3M judgment.  Notice to the... Read More

NHL Trademark Case – 16-Month Delay Untimely Despite Insurer Paying 1/3 Defense Expenses – Waiver Must be Intentional The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, applying New York law, ruled that an insurance company is not obligated to pay the remaining two-thirds of its insured’s defense costs in an... Read More

Malicious Prosecution “Occurrence” When Wrongful Conduct Happened, Not Exoneration (Reversal) The Illinois Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, found that coverage for malicious prosecution is not triggered by exoneration. Thus, the insurers at the time of the exoneration had no obligation to fund the remaining $10 million of a settlement for a malicious prosecution suit brought by a man who... Read More

 Insurer Sanctioned Because Reasons for Rescission Unrelated to Claim  The First District Appellate Court, in an opinion written by Justice Howse with Justices Ellis and Cobbs concurring, upheld the judgment of the Circuit Court awarding bad faith damages against an insurer for its vexatious and unreasonable conduct in denying coverage and rescinding an auto policy. The Appellate Court found that... Read More

Insurer Ordered to Pay $2.8M in Bad Faith Damages  The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion by Judge Charles P. Kocoras, applying Illinois law, ordered an insurer to pay $2.8 million in bad faith damages for seven years of defense and other expenses incurred by its insured in defending an underlying suit and... Read More

Time of “Occurrence” Inferred from Complaint    The Illinois Appellate Court’s First District, in an opinion written by Justice Cobbs with Justices McBride and Howse concurring, upheld a lower court judgement on the pleadings in a declaratory judgement action filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) against its insured, Ferrara Candy Co. The Appellate Court held... Read More