SDV Insights

Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

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.

Read More +

New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute

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.

Read More +

Overbroad Wrap Exclusion Can Hamper Additional Insured Risk Transfer

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

Read More +

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

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

Read More +

No General Liability Coverage for an Obstacle Course Race Injury

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.

Read More +

Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

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.

Read More +

PA High Court: Proof of Insurer's Ill Will is Not Required for Bad Faith Claim

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."

Read More +

The Connecticut Appellate Court Finds Single Auto Policy Limit Applies to Two Claims

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.

Read More +

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! - Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

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!

Read More +

Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

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.

Read More +

CONTACT US

The email you are sending does not create an attorney-client relationship with SDV. We do not agree to representation until we have performed a check for conflicts of interest and expressly agree to provide services in a particular matter via an engagement letter. The information submitted to us via this website will NOT be treated as confidential or privileged as a lawyer/client communication and our receipt of this information does not prevent us from representing a client related to the subject of your inquiry.

Northeast

35 Nutmeg Drive
Trumbull, CT 06611

203.287.2100

Southeast

851 5th Avenue N
Naples, FL 34102

239.316.7244

West Coast

Two BetterWorld Circle
Temecula, CA 92590

951.365.3145


SDV is based in Connecticut, conveniently located between New York City and Boston, with regional offices in Florida and California to better serve our clients. We're ready to answer your questions and eager to assist you in developing solutions.