Threats, Opportunities Presented by New Technology in the Insurance IndustryContinue reading
By: Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll It has long been the rule, under Pennsylvania law, that an insurer’s duty to defend is determined “solely” by the allegations in
On December 31, 2019, the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision clarifying what does and does not constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” in the construction defect context.
Exxon Mobil prevailed with a narrow victory, and the majority of issues concerning potential climate change liabilities have yet to be decided.
It has long been the rule in Pennsylvania that a mental or psychological injury generally does not constitute “bodily injury,” as defined in most standard insurance policies, unless that mental or psychological injury results from a physical injury.
Threats, Opportunities Presented by New Technology in the Insurance Industry
Top Developments in Asbestos, Insurance Adjusters, Late Notice – Prejudice, Occurrence – Building Conditions, Settlement – Consent and Cases to Watch in Defense Cost Reimbursement and Duty To Defend – Extrinsic Evidence
On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al.
The coverage community was anxiously waiting to learn if an employee claims adjuster could be sued for bad faith or violations under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019, a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work.
Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency