ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 29 reversed a lower federal court's ruling that a conference center is entitled to coverage as an additional insured, finding that a minor's injuries from a zip-lining accident did not arise out of the use of the premises the conference center leased to the insured (Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center Inc., et al., No. 17-3635, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22443).
CHICAGO —A real estate services firm insured on July 17 sued its first-level excess professional liability insurer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for breach of contract and bad faith in a coverage dispute over an underlying fraudulent misrepresentation suit regarding a real estate appraisal the insured generated 13 years ago (Cushman & Wakefield of Pennsylvania v. Illinois National Insurance Company, No. 19-04790, N.D. Ill.).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 26 denied an excess insurer’s request for a panel rehearing and an en banc rehearing of its request to vacate a ruling that required it to pay $2.76 million to the maker and designer of air ducts that are allegedly defective (National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al. v. Donaldson Company Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 18-1063, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22404).
TROY, Mich. — A Michigan appeals panel on July 25 affirmed a lower court’s finding that an insurance policy’s “violation of statutes” exclusion barred coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging that an insured transmitted unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (AMCO Insurance Company v Invecor LLC, et al., No. 342498, Mich. App., 2019 Mich. App. LEXIS 4175).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An insurer on July 25 appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court a lower court judge’s same-day denial of its application seeking to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court’s ruling last month that held that allegations that an insured installed “counterfeit” delineator posts while performing its contractual services for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) potentially trigger coverage under a contractor's protective professional indemnity and liability insurance policy (Steadfast Insurance Company v. DBi Services, LLC, No. N18C-03-291 PRW CCLD, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge on July 23 held that wrongs asserted in two underlying securities lawsuits implicated “entirely distinct misrepresentations of very different health risks associated with Celebrex,” rejecting excess directors and officers liability insurers’ argument that the specific litigation policy exclusion excuses their duty to defend (Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, N18C-01-310, Del. Super.; 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 345).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge on July 25 denied primary and excess insurers’ motion to reargue to challenge a ruling last month that found a civil investigative demand issued by the Texas attorney general against an insured constitutes a claim for nonmonetary relief that alleged a wrongful act and triggered professional liability coverage (Conduent State Healthcare, LLC, et al. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, No. N18C-12-074, Del. Super.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York appeals panel on July 24 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a commercial general liability insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify additional insureds against an underlying personal injury lawsuit arising from a construction site injury and to reimburse them for all underlying defense costs (AVR-Powell C Development Corp., et al. v Utica First Insurance Company, No. 2016-11075, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 2nd Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5786).
DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 24 reversed and remanded a lower court’s finding that a professional liability insurance policy’s faulty workmanship exclusion precluded coverage for a lawsuit alleging that the insured poorly designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement project and the court’s grant of summary judgment on the insured’s claim of statutory bad faith but affirmed the dismissal of the insured’s common-law bad faith claim (Rockhill Insurance Company v. CFI-Global Fisheries Management, et al., Nos. 18-1201 & No. 18-1207, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22049).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 22 affirmed a lower federal court’s finding that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its motel owner insured against underlying claims that it was negligent in failing to prevent human sex trafficking from occurring at its property because the "assault and battery" exclusion precludes coverage (Nautilus Insurance Company v. Motel Management Services, Inc., et al., Nos. 18-2290 & 18-3436, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21680).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on July 10 held that a lawsuit alleging that an insured breached an employment contract by failing to pay for a former employee’s vested annual leave does not constitute a negligent act, error or omission to trigger coverage under an insurance policy, finding that the insurer has no duty to defend against the underlying lawsuit (Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Company, Inc., No. 19-60399, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115552).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 23 affirmed a lower federal court's finding in favor of an executive and organization liability insurer in an insured’s lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying criminal investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (Crowley Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 18-10953, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874).
SAN DIEGO — A California appeals panel on July 22 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a homeowners insurance policy unambiguously excludes coverage for the theft of the insured’s personal property by one of her tenants, rejecting the insured’s argument that the exclusion does not apply or is ambiguous (Shirley Pearson v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. D074426, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1; 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4829).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 19 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that an insurer owes only $250,000 under its excess insurance policy toward a $4 million settlement that its foster care provider insured reached with the administrator of the estate of a toddler who was murdered after being placed in a foster home by the insured (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. The Chicago Trust Company, et al., Nos. 18-3181 and 18-3241 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21539).
NEW ORLEANS — An insurer recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that it has a duty to defend its pastor insured against three underlying lawsuits alleging that he sexually assaulted three parishioners, arguing that the lower court’s construction of its policies’ sexual or physical abuse or molestation coverage “neither mentions nor distinguishes case law interpreting those same policy provisions in a manner that precludes a duty to defend” (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Terry R. Knighten, No. 18-50832, 5th Cir.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge on July 17 ruled that the Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) has not identified an imminent threat supporting the “extraordinary remedy” of preliminary injunctive relief with regard to the passing and signing of recent legislation that affects it (Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association v. Tom Wolf, No. 19-1121, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118517).
SEATTLE — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 18 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that policy exclusions for “knowing violation of the rights of another,” “material published with knowledge of its falsity” and “knowledge of falsity” excused an insurer’s duty to indemnify a defamation judgment obtained against its insured (Bradley Stephen Cohen, et al. v. Berkley National Insurance Company, No. 17-16960, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21324).
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey appeals panel on July 15 affirmed a judge’s “cogent written opinion” that rejected a borough insured’s argument that it did not commit a material and deliberate breach of an insurance policy’s cooperation clause, finding that the borough’s contentions are “without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion” (Jacquelyn Ferentz v. Mayor Herbert Frederick, et al., No. A-5628-17T2, N.J. Super., App. Div., 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1620).
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey appeals panel on July 15 held that an insured’s assignment of its tort claims against its insurance broker was invalid, reversing a lower court’s $500,000 ruling against the broker in a lawsuit alleging that it procured inadequate business interruption insurance (AII1, LLC v. Pinnacle Insurance Solutions, LLC, et al., Nos. A-2241-17T4 and A-2291-17T4, N.J. Super., App. Div., 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 12 reversed a lower federal court’s finding that war exclusions in a motion picture/television producers portfolio insurance policy bar coverage for the expenses a production company incurred in postponing and subsequently relocating the production of the television show "Dig" from Israel because of conflict in summer 2014, finding that the insurer breached the policy when it denied coverage by defining the conflict as “war” and “warlike action by a military force” (Universal Cable Productions LLC, et al. v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-56672, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20704).