In an April 25 decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that two excess insurers had no duty to defend policyholder Johnson Controls in connection with claims for alleged environmental contamination at numerous sites.
On March 27, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals issued its widely anticipated decision in Keyspan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
On March 15, 2018, a California federal court (for the Northern District) ruled that under either California or New York law an “all sums” allocation applies to claims for coverage for an underlying mesothelioma wrongful death action.
Top Developments in Attorney’s Fees – Declaratory Judgment Action, Bad Faith, Construction Defect, Independent Counsel and Pollution Exclusion
An Insurer’s Guide to Reserving Rights: Tips for Avoiding Waiver and Estoppel and Top Developments
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to hear argument on February 6 in a case that will decide whether insurers can recoup defense costs if it is later determined that they owed no duty to defend an underlying claim.
Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants. . .
Coverage For Defense Costs Under Excess Policies – Missouri Court Surveys the Landscape
and Top Developments
Top Developments in Construction Defect, Defense Cost Reimbursement, Exhaustion, New York Insurance Law Section 3420, Number of Occurrences, Pollution Exclusion, Reinsurance, and Trigger of Coverage
The New York Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the closely-watched Global v. Century case. . .