Showing 1 - 10 of 67
Last year, the Fifth Circuit became the latest circuit court to endorse snap removal, making it the third circuit court in the country to allow the practice.
Two appeals pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court this year concern availability of automobile insurance coverage when the driver is insured under another insurance policy.
As a majority rule, the burden is on the insured to allocate between covered and uncovered claims. For example, when a judgment against an insured includes damages for which an insurer is liable and also damages beyond the coverage of the policy, the insured has the burden to establish (i.e. to allocate) which percentages of the verdict represent covered damages versus uncovered damages.
Nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted an “all sums” approach to allocate insurance coverage for progressive injuries among multiple triggered policies. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., the Court held that “when a continuous occurrence of environmental pollution triggers claims under multiple primary insurance policies, the insured is entitled to secure coverage from a single policy of its choice that covers ‘all sums’ incurred as damages ‘during the policy period,’ subject to that policy's limit of coverage.” 769 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ohio 2002).
In NY, insurers cannot recoup defense costs absent express policy provision – do other jurisdictions agree?
The New York Appellate Division, Second Department held that, absent express policy language, an insurer is not entitled to recoup defense costs despite a determination that the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insureds. The insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement of the defense costs it paid, but the court found that because the policy did not contain language allowing for recoupment, permitting the insurer to do so would essentially create a contractual right not provided for in the policy.
Kennedys continues to deepen its bench of offerings with the addition of partner Jared Greisman to its New York office. He joins from Goldberg Segalla, where he was a partner in the global insurance services team and chaired his first-party property practice.
Over the last year, state and federal courts in Texas have faced the recurring question of whether the Eight Corners Rule in Texas should be reworked to allow the consideration of extrinsic evidence in certain, limited situations, and if so, when.
Florida high court forecloses recovery for extra-contractual damages in first-party breach of contract actions
The Florida Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Manor House, LLC, --- So. 3d ----, 2021 WL 208455 (Fla. Jan. 21, 2021), in which it reiterated the long-standing principle that extra-contractual consequential damages are not recoverable in first-party breach of contract actions.
In Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that claims of faulty workmanship, including the natural consequences of that faulty workmanship, do not arise from an “occurrence”. 908 A.2d 888, 898 (Pa. 2006).