SDV Insights

Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier's property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy.

On Tuesday, October 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a 17-year-old battle between Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) and two excess insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul) and parent Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (Travelers) over whether Honeywell will have to help cover the costs of asbestos-related injury suits that were filed against it after insurers began to universally exclude coverage for asbestos-related liabilities in 1987.

SDV Partner Gregory Podolak recently published "Overbroad Wrap Exclusion Can Hamper Additional Insured Risk Transfer," another Expert Commentary article for IRMI.

A California Court of Appeal recently released a policyholder-friendly decision clarifying the meaning of the often-arising Faulty Workmanship exclusions — j.(5) ...

With the rise in popularity of obstacle course racing, millions have participated in races like Spartan Race, Rugged Maniac, Tough Mudder and Warrior Dash in the last ten years.

In early September, California, again, proved itself to be a pro-policyholder state, in a recent court of appeal decision. The court of appeal stated that manuscript additional insured endorsement language which provided coverage, "but only with respect to liability arising out of 'your work' and only as respects ongoing operations..." and "but only with respect to liability arising out of 'your work' which is ongoing...", did not unambiguously foreclose coverage for completed operations.

On September 28, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered an opinion adopting a two-part test for proving a claim under Pennsylvania's bad faith statute. To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, "the plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis."

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently held that a single "per-person" auto policy limit of insurance applied to a spouse's loss of consortium claim because it was not truly independent from the related bodily injury claim.

While schoolchildren know that the classic "the dog ate my homework" excuse doesn't work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!

The Second Circuit recently affirmed that an insured bears the burden of distinguishing between covered and uncovered damages in a claim against an insurance company.