(Supreme Court of California) – Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction…
(United States Fifth Circuit) – Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.
(United States Seventh Circuit) – Affirmed. An insurer that did not receive timely notice of an accident could not be compelled to provide coverage.
(United States Fifth Circuit) – Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.
(United States Second Circuit) – Affirmed. Collective bargaining agreement contains unambiguous language vesting welfare benefits and there is a sufficiently serious question as to whether retirees were entitled to lifetime medical coverage. District court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of union retirees is affirmed.
(United States Seventh Circuit) – Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn’t match.
(United States Fifth Circuit) – Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy’s one year coverage limitation.
(California Court of Appeal) – Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial…
(United States Fifth Circuit) – Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.
(California Court of Appeal) – Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a class action against Defendant alleging Insurance Code violations and unfair business practices for the insurance rates Defendant charged in its car rental business. The trial court found no illegal or fraudulent business practice or any economic…