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
Recent Posts
Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies What Is and Is Not an “Occurrence” in the Construction Defect Context
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 Prevails in a Major Climate Change-Related Legal Battle, But Many Questions Remain Unanswered
Exxon Mobil prevailed with a narrow victory, and the majority of issues concerning potential climate change liabilities have yet to be decided.
PTSD May Be Covered As “Bodily Injury” If It Resulted From Physical Injuries, Pennsylvania Appeals Court Holds
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.
COMPLEX INSURANCE COVERAGE REPORTER – NOVEMBER 2019
Threats, Opportunities Presented by New Technology in the Insurance Industry
Top Developments – November 2019
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