Posted In: Insurance Recovery
Washington Supreme Court Decision is a Boon for Policyholders
on August 22, 2017
Today, most, if not all, commercial general liability (CGL) policies contain absolute pollution exclusions....
Posted In: Insurance Recovery
A Determination of Number of Occurrences Often Dramatically Affects the Amount of Available Insurance Coverage
on February 16, 2017
An issue that often arises in insurance coverage cases, especially those involving underlying products liability claims, is whether multiple claims should be treated as a single occurrence or multiple occurrences under a commercial general liability ("CGL") policy. This determination can have a significant impact on the amount of insurance coverage available to a policyholder....
A CGL Policy May Not Cover Your Liability Arising from Your Employee's Intentional Acts
on June 06, 2016
Neither the typical definition of "occurrence" nor the intentional-acts exclusion precludes coverage for the negligent actions of an insured that are predicated on the commission of intentional acts by another insured, such as claims for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent entrustment. The Ohio Supreme Court has held, for example, that a homeowner's policy covered a claim for negligent supervision brought against parents whose son stabbed a classmate. See Safeco Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. White, 122 Ohio St.3d 562, 2009-Ohio-3718, 913 N.E.2d 426. A policyholder, therefore, may assume that it generally has coverage for these types of claims. Such an assumption may prove unfounded. The Ohio Supreme Court's May 12, 2016, decision in World Harvest Church provides an example of when indemnity coverage is not available. See World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., Slip Op. No. 2016-Ohio-2913....
How to Reduce the Risk of Being Required to Reimburse Your Insurer for Defense Costs
on March 7, 2016
On December 30, 2015, the First District Court of Appeals reached a decision without precedent in Ohio courts when it affirmed an order that required the policyholder to repay its insurer more than $11.7 million in defense costs, together with interest, which the insurer had paid before the First District determined that it had no duty to defend. See Chiquita Brands Intl., Inc. v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140492, 2015-Ohio-5477 ("Chiquita"). The question is whether, in the wake of Chiquita, insurers possess a broad "right" of reimbursement under Ohio law or whether that alleged right is far more limited. The answer clearly is the latter, given that the First District confined its decision to "the particular facts of this case" and further described it as "narrow." It is nonetheless important for policyholders and brokers to understand the rationale of the First District's decision and how it could impact defense coverage....
According to Hoyle: The Ohio Supreme Court's Elimination of Employers Liability Coverage for Employer Intentional Torts for Some Policyholders
on April 22, 2015
Policyholders and brokers, alike, need to be aware of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision issued last month in Hoyle, because that decision eliminates employers liability coverage for employer intentional torts under R.C. 2745.01 for many, but not necessarily all, policyholders. See Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-843. The inevitable result of Hoyle is that numerous policyholders have paid substantial premiums for policies which are not worth the paper upon which they are written....
This Blog is intended to provide information generally and to identify general legal requirements. It is not intended as a form of, or as a substitute for legal advice. Such advice should always come from in-house or retained counsel. Moreover, if this Blog in any way seems to contradict advice of counsel, counsel's opinion should control over anything written herein. No attorney client relationship is created or implied by this Blog. © 2024 Brouse McDowell. All rights reserved.