Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

Anthony L. Miscioscia and Margo Meta | White and Williams In situations where there is a dispute over a duty to defend, an insurer may provide a defense to its insured, subject to a reservation of rights, to not only deny coverage for a defense, but also to file a declaratory judgment action and recoup… Continue reading Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii     Reversing the judgment of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the insurer owed a defense in a construction defect case. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).     The Archdiocese of New York sued various… Continue reading Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

Beyond the Eight Corners: Determining Whether a Liability Insurer’s Duty to Defend Is Triggered

Andrew Gann, Etahjayne Harris and Nicholas Hill | McGuireWoods In two recent decisions, the Texas Supreme Court defined the limited parameters in which Texas courts can look beyond the “four corners” of the complaint against the policyholder and the “four corners” of the insurance policy (i.e., the “eight-corners rule”) when determining whether an insurer’s “duty… Continue reading Beyond the Eight Corners: Determining Whether a Liability Insurer’s Duty to Defend Is Triggered

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

Bethany L. Barrese | Saxe Doernberger & Vita The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion… Continue reading Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

Excess “Other Insurance” Provision Does Not Relieve Insurer’s Duty to Defend

Nathan Lovett | Wiley Rein The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that a D&O insurer cannot rely on an excess “other insurance” provision to preclude a duty to defend.  TriPacific Capital Advisors, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 5316407 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021). The… Continue reading Excess “Other Insurance” Provision Does Not Relieve Insurer’s Duty to Defend

%d bloggers like this: