HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 15 declined to review a lower court’s ruling that reinsurance facultative certificates covered defense expenses in excess of a liability cap and that insurers were entitled to interest on certain proofs of loss for asbestos claims issued before 2013 (Century Indemnity Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 68 EM 2018, Pa. Sup., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 5398).
DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 16 reversed and remanded a district court’s ruling in favor of an insurer after determining that an indoor air exclusion is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured hotel seeking coverage for underlying carbon monoxide poisoning claims (Siloam Springs Hotel LLC v. Century Surety Company, No. 17-6208, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29013).
BOISE, Idaho — An insured claims in an Oct. 15 complaint filed in Idaho federal court that its insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by denying coverage for the contamination of the insured’s sugar caused by an excess of chlorine contained in the water used to liquefy the sugar for the insured’s customers (The Amalgamated Sugar Co. LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 18-448, D. Idaho).
LAFAYETTE, Ind. — An Indiana federal magistrate judge on Oct. 5 denied an insured’s motion for summary judgment on the duty to defend and indemnify in an environmental liability coverage suit after determining that an issue of fact exists as to whether the insured’s notice of the underlying environmental liability claims was timely pursuant to the policies at issue (Landis+Gyr, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., No. 16-82, N.D. Ind., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173197).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a rehearing, the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 12 determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider whether a suit was properly transferred, but affirmed its original ruling that an insurer has no duty to cover water and mold damages in an insureds’ beach house because the insureds left the home for more than 72 hours and failed to turn off the water supply to the home as required by the policy (Vasilli Katopothis, et al. v. Windsor-Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co., et. al., No. 16-7132, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28739).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Insureds are not entitled to recover emotional distress damages as a result of an insurer’s alleged bad faith handling of their claim for water damages because the insureds suffered no physical injury that would entitle them to such damages under New Mexico law, a New Mexico federal judge said Oct. 10 (Hector Fava, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Corp., No. 17-456, D. N.M., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175153).
TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on Oct. 9 ruled that insureds in a homeowners insurance dispute failed to show that their insurer acted in bad faith in denying their claim for coverage because the insurer relied on information provided by two engineers showing that property damage to the home was not covered under the insurance policy (Natalie Orban, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 16-3050, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173212).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Oct. 9 that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend a contractor against a university’s lawsuit because subcontractor faulty workmanship is not fortuitous and does not meet the definition of an “occurrence” (Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 2017-0514, Ohio Sup., 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375).
DENVER — An insurer’s contractual indemnity claim against a contractor survived dismissal; however, a Colorado federal judge held Sept. 27 that the insurer’s contribution claim is barred under a settlement release regarding damages from a collapse (Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., et al. v. RStart LLC, No. 18-00478 c/w 18-00564, D. Colo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166429).
ERIE, Pa. — An excess insurer should be ordered to defend an insured in underlying asbestos bodily injury suits because the underlying primary policies are exhausted, an insured claims in an Oct. 3 complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court (Zurn Industries LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al., No. 18-299, W.D. Pa.).
LONDON, Ky. — No coverage is owed to an insured for an explosion at an oil refinery because the policy at issue clearly excludes coverage for combustible explosions, a Kentucky federal judge said Oct. 4 in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (Continental Refining Co. LLC v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 17-74, E.D. Ky., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171772).
MIAMI — An insurer has a duty to defend mold and water damages caused by an insured’s negligent installation of windows, a Florida federal judge held Oct. 5, adopting a magistrate’s recommendation to deny summary judgment to the insurer (National Builders Insurance Co. v. RQ Building Products Inc., et al., No. 17-61474, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172705).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 5 affirmed that an insured home’s foundation damage was not covered because the policy excludes coverage for a collapse that was caused by cracking based upon the use of faulty materials (Geung-Ho Kim, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 17-2304, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28300).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured’s bad faith claim cannot be sustained against the parent company of a homeowners insurer because the insured failed to prove that the parent company acted in bad faith in the handling of her claim for water damages, a California federal judge said Oct. 3 (Tam Vu v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-3594, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171347).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana on Oct. 3 denied a couple’s motion to remand their lawsuit seeking damages for Chinese-made drywall that was installed in their home following Hurricane Katrina, finding that they improperly joined their insurer as a defendant (Cedric Richmond, et al. v. National Gypsum Services Co., No. 17-7453, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170814).
GREENVILLE, S.C. — Because some damages arising out of construction defects are covered by commercial general liability insurance policies and because insurers did not effectively reserve their right to contest coverage, a South Carolina federal judge on Sept. 28 granted summary judgment to a condominium association (Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners Association Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., et al., No. 14-01906, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167792).
JACKSON, Miss. — An insurer is entitled to reimbursement of almost $300,000 from another insurer because the insurer seeking contribution paid more than its allocated share to settle an underlying silica exposure lawsuit after the other insurer refused to contribute anything more than the remainder of one of its policy limits, a Mississippi federal judge said Sept. 29 (Union Insurance Co. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, et al., No. 09-283, S.D. Miss., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168645).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on Sept. 28 granted motions for summary judgment filed by two excess insurers in an asbestos coverage dispute after determining that a single aggregate limit applies to each policy regardless of whether the policy was in force for more than a year (First State Insurance Co., et al. v. Ferguson Enterprises, et al., No. 16-1822, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167086).
UTICA, N.Y. — In a dispute between a primary insurer and a reinsurer over settlements of asbestos claims, a New York federal judge on Sept. 26 denied summary judgment to the parties on various issues but dismissed the insurer’s extracontractual claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165110).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — No coverage is owed to an insured under a policy insuring a sailboat that was allegedly damaged by fire and vandalism because there is no evidence that there actually was a fire and the policy clearly excludes coverage for the mold or mildew growth for which the insured seeks coverage, a Connecticut federal judge said Sept. 26 (National Liability & Fire Insurance Co. et al., v. John Jablonowski, No. 16-2031, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164784).