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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Civil rights action against town is related to earlier suit enforcing zoning laws
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 11 2012

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that a lawsuit alleging civil rights, First Amendment, and substantive due process violations is a Related Claim to an earlier complaint by the same plaintiffs seeking compliance with the insured town’s zoning laws


Default judgment against insureds unenforceable against insurer
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 5 2012

A federal district court, applying California law, has held that a default judgment entered against an insured real estate company and its employee to settle a suit by former clients was unenforceable against the company’s insurer because the judgment was the product of fraud between the company and the former clients