Between the Lines


Plaintiff’s “Reptile Theory” Closing was Improper

by Harvey Nosowitz

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay But Appeals Court Vacates Order For New Trial And Remands, Concluding That The Trial Judge Applied the Wrong Standard In Allowing A Motion for Mistrial. This blog entry takes a detour from our usual insurance coverage topics to address an… READ MORE

First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment that Insurer did not act Unfairly or Violate Chapter 93A in Handling Ice Dam Claim.

by Harvey Nosowitz

Image by Emilian Robert Vicol from Pixabay A Large Disparity Between Insurer’s Offers And A Reference Award Is Not Sufficient for an Insured to Defeat Insurer’s Summary Judgment Motion.  Homeowners’ insurance claims for water infiltration due to snow and ice present a difficult challenge both… READ MORE

SJC Addresses Whether and When Insured Can Settle Without Insurer’s Consent and Limits on Enforceability Against Insurer of a Settlement to Which the Insurer Did Not Consent

by Anderson & Kreiger

Image by rawpixel from Pixabay Case also determines when an insurer can stay a suit against the insured when there is a coverage dispute and whether paying the limits into court tolls the insurer’s liability for interest Commerce Insurance was confident that it was not… READ MORE

An Insurer had a Duty to Defend a Claim Alleging the Negligent Transfer of the Claimant’s Money to an Email Scammer.

by Harvey Nosowitz

But No Duty To Indemnify Because The Insured Settled The Claim After The Statute Of Limitations Expired. A Texas federal District Court recently reconsidered its denial of cross-motions for summary judgment on the duty to defend, and ruled that a directors & officers liability insurer breached its duty to defend… READ MORE

Professional Liability Insurer has Duty to Defend Counterclaims in Suit Over Law Firm Split, but No Duty to Fund Affirmative Claims, and the Burden to Allocate is on the Insured.

by Harvey Nosowitz

Image by Jo_Johnston from Pixabay In a blog post last October, I discussed a District of Massachusetts decision denying a motion to dismiss a suit by a law firm against its professional liability insurer alleging wrongful denial of coverage.  In that decision, the court… READ MORE

Supplementary Payments Provision Does Not Cover Award of Attorney’s Fees

by Anderson & Kreiger

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay The Massachusetts Appeals Court has adopted a legal rather than lay interpretation of the term “costs,” concluding that an insurer’s obligation to pay “costs taxed” to the insured in a suit defended by the insurer, did not require an… READ MORE

D. Mass. verdict: Insurer may be liable for bad faith for mistake of law

by Anderson & Kreiger

image credit: Image by rawpixel from Pixabay A recent ruling from the District of Massachusetts suggests that insurers are responsible for training their claims handlers to know and understand the law affecting their insureds’ liability – and that the insurer may be held liable for… READ MORE

“Your work” exclusion does not bar coverage for claim against concrete flooring subcontractor for damage to other flooring layers

by Anderson & Kreiger

A subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy provided coverage for damage to carpets and tiles laid on top of a defective subfloor, despite an exclusion for the cost to repair “your work,” the Massachusetts Appeals Court has determined. In All America Ins. Co. v. Lampasona Concrete Corp., 95 Mass. App. READ MORE

NEGPA v. DEP: The SJC Upholds the Commonwealth’s Climate Change Mitigation Program

Anderson & Kreiger

This article was first published in the Winter 2019 edition of the Boston Bar Journal. In a unanimous decision last September, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) upheld the Commonwealth’s latest climate change regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric generators, rejecting those generators’ arguments that the regulations violate… READ MORE

Electronic Transfer Scam Losses May Be Covered Under Business Owner’s Policy: A Step Toward Coverage For Crypto Currency?

by Harvey Nosowitz

The Vermont Supreme Court recently held that a business owner’s policy that provided coverage for “loss” resulting from forgery and theft, but excluded “physical loss or physical damage” resulting from a voluntary parting with property induced by any “fraudulent scheme” or “false pretenses,” could reasonably be interpreted to provide coverage… READ MORE