SDV Insights

The Massachusetts District Court found that Bill Cosby's homeowner's liability policy covered the costs of defense for defamation claims related to allegations of sexual assault, even though the policy included a broad sexual abuse exclusion.

SDV has been serving policyholders and insurance brokers in the United States for over 20 years. As part of its continuing growth, SDV has been expanding its insurance coverage expertise to include more multinational clients. The firm feels it can bring a unique perspective to growing insurance markets, such as Central and Eastern Europe.

In a recent policyholder-friendly decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found coverage under an exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion in an all-risk policy. The decision provided the insureds with millions to cover the cost of replacing the faulty work.

On November 15, 2016, 1:00 - 2:30 PM ET, SDV Southeast Managing Partner Gregory Podolak will be participating in the American Bar Association webinar, "Assessing the Situation: How to Identify and Evaluate a Contractor's Cyber and Data Risks."

The Minnesota Federal District Court recently decided against coverage for the release of carbon monoxide from an engine compartment into the open air due to a general liability policy's pollution exclusion.

As our State by State Survey on CGL Pollution Exclusions shows, the definition of the word "pollutant" can be ambiguous in the insurance context. Recently, an Alabama federal judge held that sewage was not a pollutant for purposes of the pollution exclusion in a CGL policy.

SDV Southeast Managing Partner Gregory Podolak has another new article out this week, this one for Insurance Matters, the newsletter of the Florida Bar's Insurance and Surety Committee:

SDV Partner Gregory Podolak recently published another Expert Commentary article for IRMI - Excess-Only "Other Insurance" Clauses in California.

The Florida Supreme Court recently denied review of an appellate decision interpreting a policy's "ensuing loss" exception to require a separate loss, entirely independent from the original excluded loss.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, recently held that an insurer had no duty to defend an additional insured due to an owner controlled insurance program ("OCIP") policy exclusion, despite the fact that the additional insured was not enrolled in the wrap program and did not perform any operations at the project.