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