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....
Read Full Article >>
on February 14, 2017
In Givaudan Fragrances Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., N.J. No. 076523, 2017 WL 429476 (Feb. 1, 2017), the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a case of first impression, decided whether an anti-assignment clause contained in an insurance policy prohibits the assignment of post-loss claims. The Court held that "once an insured loss has occurred, an anti-assignment clause in an occurrence policy may not provide a basis for an insurer's declination of coverage. . . ." Id. at *3....
Read Full Article >>
on February 9, 2017
Insurance Companies will often raise multiple exclusions that are contained in a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy to deny coverage for a claim arising from a construction project. The most frequently raised issues in construction disputes are the group of exclusions known as the "business risk" exclusions, and are designed to eliminate coverage for risks that are within the normal consequences of an insured's business activities. Although insurers tend to cite every possible exclusion as a bar to insurance coverage for construction claims, this blog will focus on the ongoing operations exclusion and how courts have interpreted the language....
Read Full Article >>
on January 24, 2017
"My alleged false statements about my own product actually disparaged the plaintiff's product" is how Vitamin Health, Inc. interpreted Bausch & Lomb's complaint against it for false advertising. Vitamin Health is currently seeking coverage for defense costs from Hartford Casualty Insurance Company under advertising injury coverage included in its insurance policy. See Vitamin Health, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 15-10071, 2016 WL 2622353 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2016) According to Vitamin Health, its defense costs should be covered by Hartford because the alleged false advertising impliedly disparages Bausch & Lomb's product and therefore, is a covered advertising injury claim. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan disagreed and the case is now currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Vitamin Health's argument, however, raises an interesting issue: Can a claim alleging false advertising of the insured's own product be entitled to insurance coverage on the theory that the false statement impliedly disparages another's product? If so, at what point does a statement disparage another's product by implication?...
Read Full Article >>
on January 17, 2017
Policyholders and their insurers can often take on several roles over the course of their relationship. This is especially true once litigation begins. In Evanston Ins. Co. v. House. Auth. Of Somerset, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed how to determine whether policyholders and their insurers are truly adverse for the purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction....
Read Full Article >>
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.