SDV Insights

In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of "caused, in whole or in part, by" in the additional insured context.

The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policy.

The bill amends Cal. Civ. Code § 2782.8 as it applies to indemnity agreements with design professionals. The pre-existing § 2782.8 prohibited public agencies from requiring indemnity from design professionals for anything other than claims arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional.

The American Institute of Architects ("AIA") released the latest revisions to its form construction contract documents at the AIA's National Conference on April 27-29, 2017.

On May 16, 2017, the New York Appellate Division, First Department issued HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., et al., v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., and Skanska USA Civil Northeast, No. 3095- 3095A, 2017 WL 1013645 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 16, 2017). This case involved a priority of coverage dispute between two contractors, Skanska USA Civil Northeast ("Skanska") and Siemens Corp. ("Siemens"), and their respective insurance carriers.

The Washington Supreme Court recently extended the efficient proximate cause doctrine - commonplace in first-party insurance - to a commercial general liability ("CGL") pollution claim.

On March 29, 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gives any member of the EU the right to leave. The UK has the next two years to negotiate an exit deal, which means that, barring any extensions, the UK will officially leave the EU by April of 2019.

In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that "a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers' potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn't extend to products containing the carcinogen."

Two Canadian cases have recently touched upon the concept of international arbitration provisions and enforcement of international arbitral awards.

If a contract provides for the performance of services on an offshore well that are regarded as merely incidental to the use of a vessel, does maritime or state law apply to the contract? The Fifth Circuit was recently faced with this scenario in determining the validity of an indemnity clause contained within a Master Service Agreement for services to be performed on a well offshore of Louisiana.