Decrease Font Size
Increase Font Size

Coverage Alerts

1

Summary judgment in favor of insurer proper where neither the allegations in the underlying case nor extrinsic evidence showed a potential for covered liability.

2

Storage facility's agreement to indemnify customer was incidental to the principal object of the storage agreement, namely to store the customer's property, and therefore was outside the scope of the insurance regulations.

3

A loss based on diminution in value of rare, vintage wine due to the discovery that the insured was deceived into buying counterfeit wine does not constitute a loss to covered property under a Valuable Possessions property insurance policy.

4

Prior notice provision in insurance policy applied to preclude coverage even where the application used by the insurer and submitted by the insured was designed for a different type of business than the one operated by the insured.

5

Even if additional insured endorsement could be read as only applying to ongoing operations, insurer had duty to defend where if failed to establish as a matter of law that all of the damages occurred after completion of work.  

6

Insurer had no duty to defend fraudulent marketing claims against pharmaceutical company.

7

Work product exclusions did not apply where interiors of incomplete modular units were damaged by rainwater intrusion.  Furthermore, trial court's offset of damage award against insurer of amounts paid in settlement of uninsured claims was improper. 

8

For purposes of awarding prejudgment interest, damages are certain when the allocation of indemnity turns solely on legal issues.

9

Trial court properly awarded punitive damages and Brandt fees in case where insurer engaged in clear pattern and practice of improperly refusing to defend additional insureds in construction defect cases.  However, trial court should have relied on prior contingency fee agreement instead of new, post-trial  hourly attorney fee agreement to determine appropriate Brandt fee award.

10

In continuous property damage coverage dispute, insured was not entitled to apply principles of vertical exhaustion to all of its policies regardless of policy language.