The court set out the rules concerning attorney-client privilege in the context of a coverage dispute. As a starting point, “there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege relevant between the insured and the insurer in the claims adjusting process.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the responsibilities of an insurer under a homeowners policy to an innocent insured homeowner when her fiancée — a coinsured who co-owned the home — intentionally set fire to the home.
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
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.
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.