Articles

Results 1 to 5 of 10
Most popular |Most recent


Pennsylvania court finds no coverage for construction defect claims under general liability policies

USA - December 11 2012 In the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Trumbull Corp., No. GD-11-006886 (Ct. Com. Pl. Allegheny County, Oct. 10, 2012), the court granted summary judgment in favor of two excess general liability insurers on a matter of first impression relating to coverage for damages caused by alleged faulty workmanship.

South Dakota Supreme Court decision affirming policy’s exclusion of “windmills, windchargers or towers” includes unassembled wind turbines

USA - November 19 2012 In Ass Kickin Ranch, LLC v. North Star Mut. Ins. Co., --- N.W.2d ----, 2012 WL 4960082 (S.D. Oct. 17, 2012), the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that, as a matter of first impression, an insurance policy’s exclusion of “windmills, windchargers, or their towers” included unassembled wind turbines.

Ninth Circuit holds that dread of tax liability does not trigger duty to defend

USA - October 22 2012 In Conley v. First Nat’l Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20281 (9th Cir., Sept. 27, 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether a lawsuit alleging “anxiety” qualified as “bodily injury” for purposes of triggering a duty to defend under a general liability policy.

First Circuit finds coverage for window crack occurring in-flight following insured’s repair

USA - September 20 2012 In Oxford Aviation, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., 680 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. May 18, 2012), the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a Maine federal court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Global Aerospace Inc. and concluded that that Global had a duty to defend its insured, Oxford Aviation Inc., in a lawsuit by its customer, Airlarr, for alleged negligent repairs.

Andrew T. Houghton.

Federal court denies additional insured’s request to stay coverage action arising from “moonlight fire” claims

USA - July 30 2012 A California federal court recently refused to stay a coverage action brought by an additional insured against its insurer for coverage for underlying lawsuits arising out of a large forest fire.