attorney connecticut insurance title

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Insurance Disputes Legal News
Headline Emerging Insurance Disputes Legal News from LexisNexis®

• Insured Had Knowledge Of Prior Wrongful Acts Before Policies Were Issued
  ST. LOUIS - Class action lawsuits filed by former H&R Block Inc. clients before H&R Block's excess professional liability policies were effective provided the insured with knowledge of the prior wrongful acts on which later class action claims were based and a reasonable way to foresee that future claims may be filed, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Nov. 14 (H&R Block Inc. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co; Lexington Insurance Co., No. 07-3156, 8th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23587). Full story on lexis.com
• No Coverage For Malpractice Suit; Insured Dentist Breached Policy's Cooperation Clause
  ST. LOUIS - An insurer owes no coverage for an underlying medical malpractice suit filed against an insured dentist because the dentist's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege and refusal to testify and participate in his defense was a breach of the policy's cooperation clause and was prejudicial to the insurer, a federal judge said Nov. 21 (The Medical Protection Co. v. James E. Bubenik, D.M.D., et al., No. 06-1639, E.D. Mo.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95130). Full story on lexis.com
• Underlying Suit Failed To Name Specific Directors And / Or Officers, Judge Says
  PORTLAND, Maine - No coverage is owed under a directors and officers (D&O) policy for the settlement of an underlying disability discrimination lawsuit because the underlying suit did not name any specific directors or officers, only the company itself, a federal judge said Nov. 19 (Medical Mutual Insurance Company of Maine v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., No. 08-48, D. Me.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94361). Full story on lexis.com
• Insured Vs. Insured Exclusion Precludes Coverage For Suit Filed By Former Officers
  NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Insured directors and officers are not entitled to coverage for an underlying suit filed by former directors and officers of the same company because the policy's "insured vs. insured" exclusion applies to preclude coverage, a federal judge said Nov. 14 (M. William Macey Jr., et al., v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co., No. 06-1719, D. Conn.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92812). Full story on lexis.com
• Issues Of Fact Exist As To Whether Employee's Actions Were Intentional, Panel Finds
  GRETNA, La. - An employers liability policy does not unambiguously exclude coverage to an insured employer for an underlying negligence suit because the employer is not alleged to have committed an intentional act and an employee's intent in striking another employee must be resolved before a determination can be made as to whether the employer was vicariously liable for the employee's actions, the Fifth Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeal said Nov. 25 (Toni Nizzo v. Phyllis Forest Wallace, No. 08-CA-525, La. App., 5th Cir.; 2008 La. App. LEXIS 1537). Full story on lexis.com
• England And Wales High Court Issues Landmark Ruling On 'Trigger Issue'
  LONDON - An England and Wales High Court justice ruled Nov. 21 that employers' liability insurers are liable to pay compensation to claimants who developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure in the workplace if they insured the employer at the time the exposure occurred (Employers' Liability Policy "Trigger" Litigation, No. [2008] EWHC 2692, England and Wales High, QBD). Full story on lexis.com
• Carrier Owes No Coverage; Insured Failed To Provide Timely Notice Of Lawsuits
  DETROIT - A nonprofit liability insurer owes no coverage to the State Bar of Michigan for two underlying lawsuits filed by individuals who were denied admission to the Michigan bar because the bar failed to give timely notice of the underlying suits to the insured, a federal judge said Nov. 10 (State Bar of Michigan v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 07-12599, E.D. Mich.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94029). Full story on lexis.com
• Parent Company Is Not Named Applicant; No Coverage Owed Under Technology Policy
  DALLAS - No coverage is owed to the parent company of a telecommunications systems provider because the technology liability policy at issue provides coverage only to subsidiaries of the named applicant of the policy and the parent company is not the named applicant on the policy, the Fifth District Texas Court of Appeals said Nov. 24 (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. LM Ericsson Telefon, AB and Ericsson Inc., No. 05-07-01467-CV, Texas App., 5th Dist.; 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 8824). Full story on lexis.com
• Injuries Sustained While Preparing For X-Ray Are Excluded Under Policy
  DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - Because the act of positioning a patient's foot to take an X-ray falls within a business liability policy's provision excluding coverage for injuries due to the rendering of professional services, no coverage is owed for an underlying negligence suit filed against the insured doctor, the Fifth District Florida Court of Appeal said Nov. 7 in reversing (State Farm Florida Insurance Co., v. Sarah Campbell, Ronald Campbell, et al., No. 5D07-2358, Fla. App., 5th