SDV Insights

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.

On Wednesday, February 22, two of SDV’s own, Alexandra Byrd and Stella Szantova Giordano, attended the “Women Who Build” summit in Hartford, CT.  Only in its second year, ...

An insurer's "cut-and-pasted" reservation of rights, simply reciting policy language, may be inadequate to notify the insured of the particular grounds upon which coverage may be denied.

On February 14 from noon to 1 PM EST, SDV Attorney Stella Szantova Giordano will present an introductory workshop on insuring construction projects at the University of Hartford’s Construc ...

SDV recently filed an amicus curiae brief in the Rhode Island Supreme Court in support of insured motorists and passengers injured while rendering aid to other motorists.

A subcontractor's insurer refused to defend a general contractor even though they were named additional insured on its CGL Policy. Where does the insurer's duty to defend begin? Where does it end?

What happens when a senior vice president ignores a litigation hold and deletes tens of thousands of emails? A $3 million sanction.

What happens when a policyholder suffers a loss caused by multiple perils, but not all perils are covered? On one hand, Florida's Second District Court of Appeals has ruled that there should be no coverage under the efficient proximate cause doctrine. On the other hand, Florida's Third District Court of Appeals has held that pursuant to the concurrent clause doctrine, there should be coverage.