Failure to Supply Exclusion (from FC&S Legal)

•

1 gostou•3,334 visualizações

This article discusses the failure to supply exclusion which precludes liability coverage for injury or damage arising out of the failure to supply a product or service.

Notícias e política

Failure to Supply Exclusion (from FC&S Legal)

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de NationalUnderwriter

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Right to Recover Punitive Damages Arising from Insurer¹s Bad Faith by Sara N. Brown and Roberta D. Anderson In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wolfe[1] that a policyholder may assign statutory bad faith claims under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, Section 8371,[2] to a third party claimant. Importantly, Wolfe resolves the conflict among Pennsylvania and federal decisions regarding the assignability of the right to recover statutory bad faith damages, and allows assignees to seek punitive damages under the statute against an insurer who acts in bad faith.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Rig...

NationalUnderwriter

New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to Insurers by Eric R. Dinallo, Jeremy Feigelson, David A. O’Neil, Jim Pastore, and Jordan R. Friedland The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently announced a major expansion of its cybersecurity efforts: DFS will require insurers to respond to a special “comprehensive risk assessment” on cybersecurity, with those assessments to be followed by an enhanced focus on cybersecurity as part of DFS’s regular examinations of insurers. DFS’s announcement expands to insurance the increasingly rigorous approach it has recently applied to banks in the area of cyber security. More importantly, it offers critical guidance to all industries about what regulators will consider adequate precautions and preparation in this area.

New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to In...

NationalUnderwriter

Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Inju...

NationalUnderwriter

Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an Audit by Lynda Bennett 2014 ended almost the same way that it began for most companies – having concerns about cyber security and hackers. At the beginning of the year, the news cycle was focused on breaches that took place in the consumer product space as Target, Michael’s, Neiman Marcus, and Home Depot worked fast and furious to address breaches that led to concerns about a massive amount of credit card information possibly being “in the open.” Later in the year, we learned that corporate giants like JPMorgan Chase and Apple were not immune from cyber security breaches as still more personally identifiable information and very personal photographs were released into the public domain. Finally, as 2014 drew to a close, the entertainment industry was further rocked by the cyber-attack on Sony Corp., which led to even broader concerns about national security and terrorist threats.

Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an Audit

NationalUnderwriter

Class Actions: Insurance Related Claims by Thomas F. Segalla Whether prosecuting or opposing a motion for class certification, within the context of insurance related claims, there are certain principles that are critical to determining the allegations that are necessary to successfully assert such claims and the nature of any challenge to a motion to certify the punitive class. As the court noted, in the case of Deborah Mahon v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.:[1]

Class Actions: Insurance Related Claims

NationalUnderwriter

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer by Michael S. Levine In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad ...

NationalUnderwriter

CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2] Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.

CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...

NationalUnderwriter

N.J. Trial Court Applies "Named Storm" Deductible in Superstorm Sandy Case A New Jersey trial court has ruled that the “Named Storm” deductible applied to an insured’s claim in a Superstorm Sandy case. The Case: Wakefern Food Corporation, a buying cooperative of owners/operators of Shoprite and PriceRite supermarkets that purchased commercial property insurance from Lexington Insurance Company, claimed over $50 million in losses from Superstorm Sandy. Lexington paid about $22 million, and Wakefern sued the insurer. Wakefern asserted that Superstorm Sandy was not a “Named Storm” by definition when it hit New Jersey and its losses had occurred. It asserted that when the storm hit New Jersey at approximately 8:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012, the storm was not declared by the National Weather Service to be a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or tropical depression, as its policy defined Named Storm. Wakefern pointed out that as of 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012, the storm already was “expected to transition into a frontal or wintertime low pressure system shortly.” Wakefern contended that by 7:00 p.m. EDT, the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center (“NHC”) had declared the storm a “Post-Tropical Cyclone.” Wakefern argued that a “Post-Tropical Cyclone” was defined in the glossary of NHC terms as its own weather event and that a Post-Tropical Cyclone was a “former tropical cyclone” not a “Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Storm or Tropical Depression.”

N.J. Trial Court Applies "Named Storm" Deductible in Superstorm Sandy Case

NationalUnderwriter

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-...

NationalUnderwriter

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamination Resulting from the Application of Manure and Septage as Fertilizer In Wilson Mutual Ins. Co. v. Robert Falk and Jane Falk,[1] and Preisler v. Kuettel’s Septic Serv.,[2] the Wisconsin Supreme Court sought to resolve conflicting court of appeals’ decisions on whether excrement (manure and septic waste, respectively) are “pollutants” under standard insurance policy exclusions when they contaminate groundwater after being applied as fertilizer. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected categorically defining manure and septage as “pollutants.” Instead, the court determined that such fertilizing excrement unambiguously falls within the applicable policy’s definition of “pollutants” once the manure and/or septage has contaminated a water supply.

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamin...

NationalUnderwriter

New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Families a Single Loss for Coverage Purposes In its recent decision in Nesmith v. Allstate Ins. Co.,[1] the New York Court of Appeals ruled that lead paint exposure injuries suffered by the children of two different families occupying the same apartment in successive periods constitute a single “accidental loss” subject to a single per-occurrence limit pursuant to the non-cumulation clause in two successive policies issued by a landlord’s insurer.

New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Fam...

NationalUnderwriter

February14 IRS Valentine’s Day Words of Wisdom by Jay Katz

NationalUnderwriter

Discharge of Debt Income (from The Tools & Techniques of Income Tax Planning)

NationalUnderwriter

The IRS Halloween Bag of Tricks

NationalUnderwriter

Making Sense of California's "Accident" Requirement in Liability Insurance Po...

NationalUnderwriter

Experience, Expertise, and Preparation: Keys to a Successful Workers' Compensation Fraud Investigation by Stacey Golden (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center) Unfortunately, workers’ compensation fraud has been on the rise. The poor state of the U.S. economy is certainly a factor with the associated mortgage meltdown and government cutbacks. Even rising student debt in this environment is placing pressure on young people. Equally unfortunate for those who see fraud as a solution to their challenges, many consider it easy money and are simply clueless to the potential consequences. There are also plenty of examples of sophisticated cases that require careful and persistent digging.

Experience, Expertise, and Preparation: Keys to a Successful Workers' Compen...

NationalUnderwriter

Defining Terms in an Insurance Policy Exclusion: What the "Eight Corners" Rule Does Not Require by Kelly M. Lippincott and Katherine C. Ondeck (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center) In Carlyle Investment Management, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co.,[1] the District of Columbia Superior Court held that when an insurance contract’s definitions of relevant terms brings a claim within the scope of an exclusion within the policies, it does not matter whether those same terms might mean something else in the context of a different case or a different contract. The contract definitions of the terms control.

Defining Terms in an Insurance Policy Exclusion: What the "Eight Corners" Ru...

NationalUnderwriter

Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" in California Can Retain More Than One Firm by Carey B. Moorehead In a case of first impression, a California district court has ruled that California law does not preclude an insured from retaining multiple law firms as independent or Cumis counsel where the insurer is defending under reservation of rights. The court’s ruling came in the case of Signal Products v. American Zurich Insurance Company, et al. The Signal Products court was called upon to interpret California Civil Code §2860 in the context of cross-motions for summary judgment between American Zurich Insurance Company and its insured Signal Products, Inc., the defendant in a trademark infringement action. Zurich had agreed to defend Signal under reservation of rights and consented to Signal’s retention of independent counsel.

Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" i...

NationalUnderwriter

Statements Made by Insurance Company¹s Employees Can Be Used as Evidence That It Must Provide a Defense. by Graham C. Mills The Court of Appeal of California, in North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., recently issued a significant opinion finding that statements and notes made by an insurance company’s employee can be used as evidence that an insurance company has a duty to defend its policyholder in a lawsuit. This opinion is important because insurance companies often will argue that such statements and notes cannot be used to establish a duty to defend because such duty only exists when the insurance policy provides coverage against a complaint’s allegations, regardless of what insurance company employees say or write.

Statements Made by Insurance Company¹s Employees Can Be Used as Evidence That...

NationalUnderwriter

A Tax Professional’s Ten Commandments from Jay Katz' Tool & Techniques World ...

NationalUnderwriter

Mais de NationalUnderwriter (20)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Rig...

New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to In...

Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Inju...

Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an Audit

Class Actions: Insurance Related Claims

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad ...

CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...

N.J. Trial Court Applies "Named Storm" Deductible in Superstorm Sandy Case

Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-...

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamin...

New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Fam...

February14 IRS Valentine’s Day Words of Wisdom by Jay Katz

Discharge of Debt Income (from The Tools & Techniques of Income Tax Planning)

The IRS Halloween Bag of Tricks

Making Sense of California's "Accident" Requirement in Liability Insurance Po...

Experience, Expertise, and Preparation: Keys to a Successful Workers' Compen...

Defining Terms in an Insurance Policy Exclusion: What the "Eight Corners" Ru...

Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" i...

Statements Made by Insurance Company¹s Employees Can Be Used as Evidence That...

A Tax Professional’s Ten Commandments from Jay Katz' Tool & Techniques World ...

Failure to Supply Exclusion (from FC&S Legal)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de NationalUnderwriter

Mais de NationalUnderwriter (20)