INSURANCE LAW BLOG

Between the Lines


 

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

A Blow to the Face Arises From Assault and Battery for Purposes of Determining an Insurer’s Duty to Defend, Even if the Complaint Alleges Negligence.

by Harvey Nosowitz

The Court Also Holds That an Employee is an “Insured,” But Not the “Named Insured,” and Therefore is Not Entitled to Assault and Battery Coverage Applicable to Only the Named Insured. In the world of insurance coverage litigation, a lot can depend on a single word.  A… READ MORE

Appeals Court Untangles Dispute Over Insurance for Home Heating Oil Spill

by Harvey Nosowitz

Decision Addresses Nature and Purpose of Collateral Source Rule. Happily, in this case there was plenty of insurance coverage for the remediation of a home heating oil spill.  But it took two lawsuits and an appeal to figure out who would pay, and how much. The homeowner’s insurer paid… READ MORE

In the Event of a First Party Payment After a Loss, the “Collateral Source” Rule Works Most of the Time to Permit the Subrogated Insurer to Sue for the Full Amount of the Loss – But Not Always.

by Steven L. Schreckinger

The collateral source rule applies so that if a plaintiff has recovered for a loss from his or her own insurer, that recovery is a “collateral source,” and does not let the tortfeasor off the hook.  A defendant cannot offset his or her liability by the amount… READ MORE