Decrease Font Size
Increase Font Size

Coverage Alerts

1

 "Other insurance" clause that operated as a disfavored escape clause will not excuse an insurer from its defense obligations just because it is located within the insuring agreement of the policy.

2

Summary judgment in favor of insurance broker was improper where plaintiffs' assignment claims were not limited by equitable subrogation principles.

3

Mother's auto policy, which excluded "regular use" of a non-owned auto, did not cover daughter's exclusive use of father's vehicle.

4

 Insurer could not rely on "escape clause" in its policy to avoid contributing to costs incurred in defending co-insured.

5

Insurer not liable to reimburse for cost of repairs incurred by insured to prevent imminent insurable damage.

6

Stipulated judgment could not be relied on to prove plaintiff's damages where insurer was defending at time of stipulated judgment.

7

Nevada Supreme Court answers certified questions finding (1) Nevada law requires an insurer to provide independent counsel [Cumis counsel]when a conflict of interest arises between it and its insured, and (2) a reservation of rights does not necessarily create such a conflict.

8

In overruling its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 934, the California Supreme Court ruled that, under Insurance Code Section 520, policy benefits can be assigned without the insurer's consent after a loss has occurred, regardless of whether the policy contains a consent to assignment clause.

9

California Supreme Court answers in the affirmative the narrow question of whether an insurer may seek reimbursement directly from independent counsel when the insurer has paid counsel's bills in compliance with a court order which preserved the insurer's post-underlying litigation right to recover "unreasonable and unnecessary amounts" paid.

10

Insurer with superior equities may recover, based on equitable subrogation, from party owing contractual indemnity obligation to insured.