Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust TransparencyContinue reading
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
ALI LIABILITY INSURANCE RESTATEMENT The ALI “Restatement of the Law-Liability Insurance” has recently been the subject of further legislative activity in at least three states: ARKANSAS – Act 742 (enacted
Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Sharing Privileged Communications: What Insurers and Reinsurers Need to Know and Top Developments
Top Developments in Allocation – Defense Costs, Bad Faith, Business Risk Exclusions, Defense Counsel Malpractice Claims, Non-Cumulation, Pollution Exclusion and Voluntary Payments
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight seven decisions from the last year that you should know about, and five pending cases — all before state high courts — to keep an eye on. The choices were not always easy.
In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach.