We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 24

Property damage exclusion bars coverage for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2013

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying Texas law, has held that an insurer had no duty to defend two lawsuits


Real property investment transaction does not constitute a "covered product" under an insurance agents E&O policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2013

A federal court in West Virginia, applying West Virginia law, has found that allegations regarding a fraudulent real estate deal did not fall within


Prior knowledge condition not satisfied where insured had reason to foresee possible claim despite belief that claim would be meritless
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that an insured employer’s knowledge of its employee’s prior fraudulent acts gave the employer reason, prior to the policy’s inception, to foresee a potential claim based on its negligent hiring and supervision of the employee


Hurricane damage claim barred by property damage exclusion
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 18 2013

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has held that an insurer did not owe a duty to defend a lawsuit by a homeowner


Bond exclusion and insured vs. insured exclusions bar coverage for claims against property management company
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 18 2013

A California federal district court has held that a bond exclusion in a professional liability policy issued to a property management company and the


Property damage exclusion precludes duty to defend
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 19 2011

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has held that an insurer did not owe a duty to defend under a Non-Profit Executive Protection and Employment Practices Liability Insurance (D&O) policy issued to a condominium association (the Association) because the claims in the underlying breach of contract suit fell under the policy’s property damage exclusion


Financial interest exclusion bars coverage for real estate agents' dispute with joint venturer
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2010

Applying Florida law, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has held that the "financial interest" exclusion of a Real Estate Errors and Omissions Policy barred coverage for a lawsuit brought by the joint venture partner of the insured agents concerning property purchased for the venture in the partner's name


No coverage for malpractice claim against real estate broker when claimant threatened suit prior to policy inception
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2009

The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for an insurer pursuant to a malpractice insurance policy’s prior knowledge provision based upon the claimants’ threat of a lawsuit against the insured prior to the inception of the policy


Court holds that property damage exclusion does not bar claim for title-search malpractice
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • March 22 2012

Applying Connecticut law, the Appellate Court of Connecticut held that a professional liability policy’s exclusion for claims for destruction of “tangible property” did not bar a plaintiff’s claim that her attorney’s alleged negligence resulted in her acquiring title to property subject to encumbrances that required it to be demolished by the city


Letters from claimant's counsel deemed to constitute "claims" despite absence of express request for relief
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2010

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, applying Minnesota law, has held that letters sent to an insured company by counsel retained by an injured party constituted "claims" and, that, because notice of those claims was not provided during the relevant claims-made policy period, the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the company in connection with a subsequent lawsuit brought by the injured party