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.
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.
As more and more plaintiffs’ attorneys are using lack of notice to argue that the Distribution of Material exclusion is ineffective, American Family illustrates an effective way to establish adequate notice where actual documentation may be lacking.