Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Insurance

  • March 05, 2025

    ‘Plausible’ Interpretations Doom Summary Judgment Bids In Reinsurance Row

    WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Calling both sides’ interpretations of facultative reinsurance certificates “plausible,” a New York federal judge denied competing summary judgment motions in a breach of contract suit involving a confidential environmental losses settlement.

  • March 04, 2025

    Illinois Federal Judge Enters Default Against Insureds In Debris Disposal Suit

    ROCK ISLAND, Ill. — An Illinois federal judge entered an order of default against insureds who failed to respond to the insurer’s second amended complaint, which seeks a declaration that its policy’s asbestos exclusion and pollution exclusion bar coverage for the alleged improper disposal of construction debris by the insured.

  • March 04, 2025

    Silica Exposure Lawsuits Involve More Than 1 Occurrence, Insured Says In Complaint

    NEW YORK — A commercial general liability insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by determining that more than 100 underlying silica exposure lawsuits filed against the insured are subject to coverage under only one insurance policy and involve only a single occurrence under the policy, an insured alleges in a complaint filed in New York federal court.

  • March 04, 2025

    Insurer’s Complaint In Asbestos Coverage Dispute Properly Dismissed, Panel Says

    ST. LOUIS — A commercial umbrella liability insurer’s complaint seeking a declaration that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify its insured for underlying asbestos bodily injury suits was properly dismissed based on the doctrine of claim preclusion because the insurer’s defense and indemnity obligations were already decided by the Missouri state court in a similar suit filed by the insured, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said.

  • March 04, 2025

    COMMENTARY: Sustainability Recalibration: What Insurers And Policyholders Should Know About ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance Considerations) Under Trump 2.0, Part 1

    By Scott M. Seaman

  • March 04, 2025

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Contamination Suit, Magistrate Judge Says

    SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A Texas federal magistrate judge recommended granting an insurer’s motion for summary judgment as it applies to the insurer’s duty to defend because a policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for an underlying environmental contamination lawsuit filed against the insured.

  • March 03, 2025

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage For Carbon Monoxide Death

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that a pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for the carbon monoxide death of a 17-year-old because it was reasonable for the insureds to expect that coverage would be afforded based on a reading of the pollution exclusion.

  • March 03, 2025

    Homeowner Amends Complaint Against Insurer In Black Mold Coverage Suit

    ABERDEEN, Miss. — Consistent with a Mississippi federal judge’s order, an insured homeowner filed an amended complaint against her homeowners insurer, clarifying the date on which the insured was forced to move out of her home as a result of black mold growth.

  • February 25, 2025

    Florida Panel Affirms Ruling In Insurer’s Favor In Coronavirus Coverage Suit

    MIAMI — A Florida appeals panel on Feb. 19 affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer in an insured’s declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking coverage for its business interruption losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, concluding that nothing in the record supports the insured’s contention that the governmental shutdown orders “were issued ‘due to’ specific conditions at the premises of the Insured.”

  • February 25, 2025

    Hydrofracking Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage For Suits Arising Out Of Explosion

    MIDLAND, Texas — A Texas federal judge entered judgment in favor of an insured in a dispute over reimbursement for underlying lawsuits arising out of an explosion at a saltwater facility after determining that the insurer failed to show that a jury verdict in favor of the insured was against the weight of the evidence and after determining that the policy’s hydrofracking exclusion does not bar coverage for the underlying suits.

  • February 24, 2025

    Insured Says Allocation To Excess Insurer In Contamination Suit Was Proper

    SEATTLE — A trial court correctly found that an insured was permitted to allocate more than $500,000 in defense costs incurred for environmental contamination liabilities to an excess insurer because the timing of the allocation of the defense costs was appropriate based on the timing of a decision a prior appeal filed by the insured, the insured says in a response brief filed in the Division I Washington Court of Appeals.

  • February 24, 2025

    Fact Issues Exist On Policy’s Water, Preexisting Damage Exclusions, Judge Says

    TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida federal judge partially denied a commercial property insurer’s motion for summary judgment after determining that questions of fact exist as to whether the policy’s repeated leakage of water exclusion and preexisting damage exclusion bar coverage for additional damages sought by an insured for water damages within its building.

  • February 20, 2025

    Rhode Island High Court Says Judgment Properly Entered For Homeowners Insurer

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A lower court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a homeowners insurer because the insureds’ assignee failed to offer sufficient evidence showing that the insurer’s handling of its insureds’ storm damage claim constituted a breach of contract or bad faith, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

  • February 18, 2025

    Insurer Owed Contractor, Subcontractor A Defense In Condo Water Damage Row

    NEW YORK — Concluding that a condominium had been “put to its intended use” prior to a water damage incident that arose during remodeling, a New York federal judge found that a commercial general liability insurer was obligated to defend both a contractor and subcontractor from claims brought by an adjoining unit owner.

  • February 18, 2025

    Insured Permitted To Amend Complaint In Black Mold Coverage Suit

    ABERDEEEN, Miss. — A Mississippi federal judge granted an insured’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint against a homeowners insurer to clarify the date on which the insured was forced to move out of her home as a result of black mold growth because the date is necessary to clarify before a decision can be made as to whether the insured’s claims against the insurer are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • February 18, 2025

    Oral Arguments Set In Dispute Over Applicability Of Radioactive Materials Exclusion

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on April 10 in an insured’s appeal of a district court’s ruling that no coverage is owed by insurers pursuant to the policies’ radioactive materials exclusion for an underlying suit seeking damages for bodily injuries caused by exposure to electromagnetic (EMF) radiation from the insured’s electric transformers.

  • February 18, 2025

    Defective Workmanship Claims Do Not Constitute Occurrence, Excess Insurer Argues

    PHOENIX — An excess commercial insurer filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in an Arizona federal court arguing that underlying defective workmanship allegations “standing alone do not constitute an ‘occurrence’” and repair of the purported defective workmanship or product fail to constitute “property damage” to trigger coverage, seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its subcontractor insured and an underlying $6 million stipulated judgment cannot be enforced against it.

  • February 13, 2025

    COMMENTARY: The Top Twelve Insurance Coverage Decisions Of 2024

    By Robert D. Chesler, Seán McCabe, Madilynne Lee and James A. Goodridge

  • February 13, 2025

    Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Is Duplicative Of Bad Faith Claim

    SEATTLE — An insured’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against a homeowners insurer must be dismissed because the claim is duplicative of the insured’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, a Washington federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss the claim.

  • February 13, 2025

    Insurer’s Payment Forecloses Bad Faith Claims, Not TPPCA Claims, Panel Says

    NEW ORLEANS — A district court’s judgment in favor of an insurer on an insured’s claim for violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA) must be vacated because the insurer is not absolved from liability under the TPPCA simply because it paid an appraisal award in full; however, the district court’s judgment in favor of the insurer on the insured’s bad faith claims must be affirmed because the insured’s payment of the appraisal award forecloses the insured’s bad faith claims, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said.

  • February 12, 2025

    Insurer Says No Coverage Owed To Flint, Mich., Hospital Over Water Crisis Claims

    DETROIT — An insurance company on Feb. 11 sued McLaren Health Care Corp. in Michigan federal court arguing that it has no duty to indemnify McLaren in connection with a $641 million settlement that was reached in the litigation over the lead-contaminated water claims in the city of Flint, Mich., where McLaren runs a hospital in which patients were injured during the Flint water crisis.  The insurer says it has no duty to indemnify McLaren and argues that it has “no liability of any kind” under the policy it issued.

  • February 11, 2025

    Insurer Says No Coverage Due For Underlying Toxic Exposure Suit

    LOS ANGELES — A commercial general liability insurer filed suit in California federal court, seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging that exposure to the insured’s hair styling straightening products caused individuals to be diagnosed with cancer and leukemia because the insured failed to provide timely notice of the suit and had knowledge before the issuance of the policy that its products were unsafe.

  • February 11, 2025

    No Additional Coverage Owed For Insured’s Lost Income Caused By Water Leaks

    PASADENA, Calif. — A district court did not err in confirming an appraisal award and in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer because the insurer paid the insured more than the amount owed under the policy for lost income incurred as a result of a series of water leaks in the insured’s medical office building, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal said.

  • February 11, 2025

    Insurer Maintains No Coverage Owed For Remediation Costs

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — No coverage is owed for investigation and remediation costs as a result of contamination discovered at and near the site of an insured dry cleaning business because no suit has been filed against the insured and because the policy pollution exclusion bars coverage, an insurer says in its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment filed in New Mexico federal court.

  • February 11, 2025

    Insureds Failed To Show Additional Coverage Owed For Asbestos Removal, Judge Says

    DALLAS — Insureds seeking additional coverage for the removal of asbestos in their home failed to show that additional coverage is afforded under their homeowners policy for removal of asbestos that was not related to the insureds’ claim for water damage in their home, a Texas federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the insureds’ breach of contract and extracontractual claims.