Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Insurance

  • April 16, 2025

    Insurers Have No Duty To Defend Based On Silica Exclusions, Judge Says

    LOS ANGELES — Insurers of an importer and distributor of quartz stone products have no duty to defend their insured in underlying bodily injury suits stemming from exposure to silica dust from the insured’s quartz products because the policies’ silica exclusion clearly bars coverage for the underlying suits.

  • April 16, 2025

    7th Circuit Certifies Question On Pollution Exclusion To Illinois Supreme Court

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court seeking guidance on what effect, if any, a permit or regulation that authorizes emissions has in determining how a pollution exclusion should be applied in a standard commercial general liability policy.

  • April 15, 2025

    Settled Asbestos Defendant Blames Dilatory Resolution On Insurer’s Conduct Alone

    NEW ORLEANS — An insurer misinterpreted and misrepresented the provisions of its own policy and the insurer’s actions delayed payment after a settlement in an asbestos case and it should not be rewarded for such bad faith conduct, an insured told a federal judge in Louisiana on April 14 in seeking to add a crossclaim for penalties and attorney fees.

  • April 15, 2025

    Texas Federal Judge Dismisses Chemical Exposure Coverage Suit Per Insurers’ Request

    HOUSTON — A Texas federal judge dismissed a suit filed by insurers seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed to an insured for underlying suits arising out of an explosion caused by a chemical release at a chemical plant following the insurers’ filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal.

  • April 15, 2025

    Insurers Waived Subrogation Rights, Are Not Entitled To Reimbursement, Judge Says

    NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Insurers seeking reimbursement from a waste facility operator for more than $8 million that the insurers paid to their insured for damages at the facility are barred from seeking reimbursement from the waste facility operator pursuant to a subrogation waiver included in the insured’s contract with the facility operator, a Connecticut federal judge said in granting the waste facility operator’s motion for summary judgment.

  • April 14, 2025

    2nd Circuit Refuses To Answer Certified Questions In Asbestos Liability Suit

    NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 11 refused to answer three certified questions pertaining to the issues of whether a named insured whose subsidiary companies are named as defendants in underlying asbestos liability lawsuits is entitled to coverage under its policies and whether an all-sums or pro rata method of allocation applies to defense and indemnity costs incurred by the insured after determining that answering the certified questions will not help in advancing the suit to final termination.

  • April 14, 2025

    Trial Court’s Judgment For Insurer In Water, Mold Suit Must Be Reversed, Panel Says

    TAMPA, Fla. — A trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of an all-risk insurer on a breach of contract claim in a water and mold damage coverage suit because the insureds had a burden only to show that a loss occurred during the policy period and did not bear the burden of showing that the insurer did not honor its obligations under the policy, the Second District Florida Court of Appeal said.

  • April 14, 2025

    Connecticut State Judge Refuses To Strike Insured’s Bad Faith Claim

    BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — An insured’s bad faith claim against a property insurer can proceed because it is not clear from the facts alleged in the complaint if the insurer’s denial of coverage for a water damage claim was reasonable, a Connecticut state judge held in denying the insurer’s motion to strike the bad faith claim.

  • April 11, 2025

    Environmental Contamination Suit Settled; Insurers, Insured Stipulate To Dismissal

    PORTLAND, Ore. — A primary insurer settled its dispute with an insured and the insured’s excess insurer over whether payments made by the primary insurer on behalf of its insured for environmental contamination claims exhausted its policies’ aggregate limits, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed in Oregon federal court.

  • April 10, 2025

    Jurisdiction In Texas Is Proper For A Number Of Insurers In Asbestos Suit

    HOUSTON — A trial court did not err in finding that jurisdiction exists over a number of insurers involved in an asbestos coverage dispute because the insurers failed to show that their policies’ service-of-suit clauses do not provide express consent to jurisdiction, the 14th District Texas Court of Appeals said.

  • April 09, 2025

    Meso Claimants Fight Injunction In Asbestos Debtor’s Insurance Settlement

    RICHMOND, Va. — A Virginia federal bankruptcy judge wrongly approved an injunction that bars asbestos claims as part of an $18 million settlement between Chapter 11 debtor Hopeman Brothers Inc. and excess insurers because the settlement’s “nonconsensual third party release and non-debtor discharge and corresponding injunction . . . violate recent Supreme Court precedent,” mesothelioma claimants argue in their opening brief on appeal of the settlement to a federal district court.

  • April 09, 2025

    Dismissal Or Stay Sought In Row Involving Legionnaires’ Under Reinsurance Contract

    DETROIT — Citing an arbitration provision that is part of a reinsurance agreement, defendants in a suit over claims concerning Legionnaires’ disease moved in Michigan federal court for dismissal or, alternatively, a stay pending arbitration.

  • April 08, 2025

    Panel: Insurer Entitled To Jury Trial On Defense Costs Issue In Contamination Suit

    SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 7 affirmed a district court’s ruling that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured in an underlying environmental contamination lawsuit, however, the panel said the insurer is entitled to a jury trial to determine the reasonableness of the defense costs incurred by the insured from the date of the insured’s tender of the underlying complaint through the date of the district court’s order.

  • April 08, 2025

    Contractors’ Insurers Failed To Show Subcontractors’ Acts Caused Water Leak

    NEW ORLEANS — Two subcontractors who were responsible for installing a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system and the subcontractors’ insurers are entitled to summary judgment because the contractor’s insurers failed to show that the subcontractors’ acts or omissions caused or contributed to a water leak in the HVAC system, a Louisiana federal judge said.

  • April 07, 2025

    Silica, Pollution Exclusions Bar Coverage For Dust Exposure Suits, Insurer Says

    LOS ANGELES — No coverage is owed for underlying bodily injury suits stemming from exposure to silica dust released from an insured’s countertops and stone products because the suits are barred by silica exclusions and total pollution exclusions included in the insured’s commercial general liability insurance policies, an insurer says in a complaint filed in California federal court.

  • April 07, 2025

    Asbestos Exclusions Bar Coverage For Underlying Asbestos Bodily Injury Suits

    INDIANAPOLIS — An insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit filed against its insurer cannot proceed because the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in underlying asbestos bodily injury suits based on asbestos exclusions included in the insurer’s policy, an Indiana federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss.

  • April 04, 2025

    Federal Judge Says 1 Of 3 Underlying Asbestos Injury Suits May Trigger Coverage

    FORT WORTH, Texas — A Texas federal judge determined that under the applicable exposure trigger of coverage theory, only one of three underlying asbestos personal injury suits may trigger coverage under an excess insurer’s policies because the underlying claimant raises a question of fact as to whether the exposure to asbestos from the insured’s products occurred during the applicable policy periods.

  • April 03, 2025

    U.K. Reinsurer Posts $403K Bond In Asbestos Claims Reinsurance Contract Dispute

    NEW YORK — A U.K.-based reinsurer posted a $403,748.42 bond in a federal court in New York, the amount sought by the assignee of the liquidator of an insolvent insurer in a reinsurance contract dispute relating to ongoing asbestos claims.

  • April 02, 2025

    Insurer Not Liable To Insured Seeking Coverage For Asbestos Liabilities, Federal Judge Says

    CINCINNATI — An Ohio federal judge sustained an insurer’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s amended complaint seeking coverage for underlying asbestos liabilities after determining that the insurer is not liable to the insured because the insurer transferred its liabilities in the United States to a U.S.-based insurer pursuant to a domestication agreement.

  • April 01, 2025

    Suit Against Contractors Pollution Liability Insurer Will Remain In Federal Court

    BATON ROUGE, La. — A Louisiana federal judge adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied an insured’s motion to remand a bad faith lawsuit filed against a contractors professional and pollution liability insurer, agreeing with the magistrate judge that the suit is not a direct action suit under federal law as required to avoid federal jurisdiction.

  • April 01, 2025

    Judge Says Policies’ Limit Is Based On Per-Claim Calculation Of Lead Injury Claims

    ST. LOUIS — A Missouri federal judge denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage dispute over underlying personal injury claims arising out of the insured’s lead-smelting operations, rejecting the insurer’s argument that the total limit of liability under its first two policies issued to the insured is $1.5 million and explaining that the total limit of liability under the first two policies is $21.5 million based on a policy endorsement that changed the limits of liability to $500,000 per claim.

  • April 01, 2025

    Excess Insurer Permitted To Pay Same Attorney Fee Rate As Primary Insurer

    PHILADELPHIA — An excess insurer cannot force an insured water utility company to choose substitute counsel to represent it in underlying lawsuits stemming from lead-contaminated water but the excess insurer can pay the same attorney fee rate as the primary insurer because the excess policy follow forms to the insured’s primary policy.

  • April 01, 2025

    Insurer, Reinsurer Seek To Oppose Reconsideration Of Cleanup Case Production Ruling

    PADUCAH, Ky. — An insurer and reinsurer seek leave from a Kentucky federal magistrate judge to file an opposition to a ferrosilicon producer’s motion for reconsideration of a January ruling that denied the producer’s motion to compel production of documents from the insurers in a dispute over pollution-related cleanup costs; they argue in their reply in support of their motion for leave that the motion for reconsideration violates at least two prior orders and improperly raises new arguments.

  • April 01, 2025

    Washington Panel: Tribe Fails To Show COVID-19 Caused Direct Physical Loss, Damage

    SEATTLE — A Washington appeals court panel on March 31 held that a federally recognized Indian tribe did not state a claim that the coronavirus caused “direct physical loss or damage” to its insured properties, affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the insured’s bad faith complaint arising from the pandemic.

  • March 31, 2025

    Judge Refuses To Toss Property Owner’s Coverage Suit Over Hard Rock Hotel Collapse

    NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana denied builders risk insurers’ motion to dismiss a property owner’s breach of contract lawsuit seeking additional insured coverage for its $89,877,694 in losses arising from the aftermath of the partial collapse of a Hard Rock Hotel project in New Orleans, concluding that the insureds’ claims cannot be dismissed as prescribed.