Matthew H. Mues | Davis Wright Tremaine On September 13, 2023, the Oregon Court of Appeals (“Court”) addressed several arguments made by an insurer, Arrowood Indemnity Company (“Arrowood”), as to why it did not have a duty to defend, or why it should only defend covered claims, in environmental litigation involving the Portland Harbor Superfund… Continue reading Oregon Court of Appeals Addresses an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Affirms “Complete Defense” Rule
Category: Duty to Defend
Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii While agreeing with the insured there was a duty to defend, the court determined the defense of an environmental claims was limited to $100,000. Casa Nido Partnership v. JAE Kwon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97701 (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2023). In 1976, Casa Nido purchased… Continue reading Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000
Quiet Title Action Does Not Involve Covered “Loss”
Nathan B. Lovett | Wiley Rein The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has held that a professional liability insurer had no duty to defend its insured in an underlying lawsuit because the suit did not seek “Loss” as defined in the policy. Dollar Point Ass’n, Inc. v. United… Continue reading Quiet Title Action Does Not Involve Covered “Loss”
Insurer Owes Duty To Defend In Toilet Wipe Property Damage Case: Takeaways From Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. V. Dude Products, Inc.
Adam K. Hollander adn Haley A. Hinton | Barnes & Thornburg In Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. v. Dude Products, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered whether a general liability insurer had a duty to defend a putative consumer class action in which there were no specific causes of action for property damage.… Continue reading Insurer Owes Duty To Defend In Toilet Wipe Property Damage Case: Takeaways From Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. V. Dude Products, Inc.
Duty to Defend, Number of Occurrences and Aggregate Limits of Liability – U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California Law)
Tanya M. Murray | Plunkett Cooney San Bernardino County v. The Ins. Co. of The State of PennsylvaniaCase No. 5:21-cv-01978-PSG-JEM (D. Cal. May 16, 2023) The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part, and denied in part, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. At issue between the parties, San… Continue reading Duty to Defend, Number of Occurrences and Aggregate Limits of Liability – U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California Law)