Failure to Authorize Euthanasia Not Breach of Mortality Coverage The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Indiana law, affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor, holding that Great American Assurance Company (“Great American”) did not breach the insurance agreement under either mortality coverage or Major Medical Endorsement (“MME”), and did not... Read More

Insurer Unable to Prove Existence of Products Hazard Exclusion The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, applying Louisiana law, held that there were genuine issues of material fact, denying insurer American Insurance Company’s (“AIC”) motions for summary judgment, which were based on an alleged products hazard exclusion and lack of exposure during the policy period to... Read More

Asbestos Exclusion Encompasses All Related Claims of Negligence The Louisiana Appellate Court, Fourth Circuit, applying Louisiana law, affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of StarStone National Insurance Company (“StarStone”), holding that plaintiff Tuna Construction LLC’s (“Tuna’s”) insurance policy’s asbestos exclusion applied to all related claims, and thus StarStone did not have a duty to defend Tuna. Tuna... Read More

Court Cannot Impose a Duty to Settle on Policyholder With a SIR The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Easterbrook, applying Illinois law, affirmed the district court’s dismissal of North American Elite Insurance Company’s (“North American”) claims for breach of contract, holding that the insured, Menard, Inc. (“Menard”), did not breach... Read More

Insurer Not Liable for Verdict in Excess of Limits After Declining Pre-Trial Settlement Within Limits The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, in an opinion written by Justice Coghlan, applying Illinois law, affirmed the trial court’s grant of Illinois Casualty Company’s (“ICC”) motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff Valdez failed to allege ICC’s breach of a duty to settle,... Read More

Three More Recent Opinions The Northern District of Illinois issued three rulings regarding insurance coverage for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In each decision, the Court considered certain exclusions relied upon by the respective insurers to deny coverage: an Employment-Related Practices (“ERP”) exclusion, a Distribution of Material in Violation of Statutes (“Statutory Violation”) exclusion, and Access/Disclosure... Read More

No Coverage for Claim Made on Last Day of Policy Period Because Insured Unaware The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Kennelly, applying Illinois law, granted an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding no coverage for a lawsuit alleging Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) violations that was... Read More

Statutory Violation Exclusion Ambiguous – Does Not Bar Coverage The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion written by Judge Lee, applying Illinois law, held that coverage for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) was not unambiguously precluded by a Statutory Violation exclusion in a business liability insurance policy. The... Read More

Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Intentional Tort & Negligence of Employer’s Intent to Expose Decedent  The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, in an opinion written by Justice Schostok, applying Illinois law, reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of a complaint by a widow against her now-deceased husband’s employers, holding that the plaintiff properly alleged claims of negligence and intentional tort. The plaintiff... Read More

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