Posts Categorized: Policy Exclusions

Posted: December 16, 2020

Lawsuit Deemed to Constitute Multiple “Claims” For Purposes of Determining Applicable Policy Period Under D&O Policy

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On November 27, 2020, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Alvarez v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 33917(U), holding that a lawsuit against the insureds was not wholly excluded from coverage under a D&O policy where only one... Read more »

Posted: November 23, 2020

Federal Court Stays Coverage Action Where Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify Is Contingent on Facts at Issue In Underlying State Court Action

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On October 22, 2020, Judge Román of the SDNY issued a decision in U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Village of Chester, Case No. 19-cv-467(NSR), staying an insurer’s declaratory judgment action pending the resolution of a parallel state court action that would determine the factual issues underlying the coverage... Read more »

Posted: September 23, 2020

CGL Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Where Undisputed Facts Showed Policy Exclusion Applied

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On September 16, 2020, Judge Failla of the SDNY issued a decision in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Streb, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-366 (KFP), ruling that a CGL carrier had no duty to defend a personal injury action because undisputed “extrinsic evidence” (i.e., facts not alleged in the... Read more »

Posted: April 14, 2020

Court of Appeals Grants Leave to Appeal on CGL Carrier’s Duty to Indemnify Brokerage Firm for Disgorgement Payment to SEC

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On March 26, 2020, the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal from the First Department’s decision in J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co.,126 A.D.3d 76 (1st Dep’t 2018), which held that that a disgorgement payment made as part of the settlement of an... Read more »

Posted: February 25, 2020

CGL Policy’s IP Exclusion Bars Defense Coverage Despite Absence of “Direct Claims for IP Relief” in Complaint

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On February 7, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Lepore v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 19‐778‐cv, holding that a CGL policy exclusion for any suit alleging “an infringement or violation of any intellectual property right” was triggered even though the underlying complaint did not... Read more »

Posted: January 15, 2020

Insurer Ordered to Provide Defense Coverage in Copyright Infringement Action; Whether Infringement Was Intentional Cannot Be Determined in Coverage Action

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On December 17, 2019, the First Department issued a decision in McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance Company, 2019 NY Slip Op 08960, ordering an insurer to provide defense coverage in a copyright infringement action, absent a “judicial determination” that the infringements were intentional. This coverage action... Read more »

Posted: November 26, 2019

Exclusion for “Intentional and Criminal Acts” Barred Defense Coverage for Parents Accused of “Negligent Supervision” of Minor Son Who Committed Sexual Assault

Posted by Bradley J. Nash, Litigation Partner On November 20, 2019, Judge Briccetti of the SDNY issued a decision in Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Comley, Case No. 18-cv-9259 (VB), holding that a liability insurer properly denied defense coverage, under an exclusion for “intentional and criminal acts”, for a lawsuit alleging “negligent supervision”... Read more »

Posted: July 31, 2019

“Knowing Acts” Exclusion Did Not Excuse Duty to Defend Where Insured’s Liability Could Be Established Without a Finding of Intentional Wrongdoing

On May 29, 2019, Justice Crane of the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision in Continental Cas. Co. v KB Ins. Co., Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 31513(U), holding that an exclusion for “Knowing Acts” did not excuse a CGL carrier’s duty to defend Lanham Act claims against the insured.  In the underlying... Read more »

Posted: May 7, 2019

“Insured versus Insured” Exclusion Did Not Preclude Coverage for Claims By Creditor Trust In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

On April 25, 2019, Justice Sherwood of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Schorsch, 2019 NY Slip Op 31188(U), holding that a D&O policy’s “insured versus insured” exclusion did not preclude coverage for claims against corporate officers by a Creditor Trust. In Schorsch, corporate officers sought coverage under... Read more »

Posted: December 10, 2018

Exclusion for Claims “Arising Out Of” Radioactive Contamination Requires “Some Causal Relationship”, Not Proximate Causation

On November 26, 2018, Judge Feuerstein of the EDNY issued a decision in Merritt Environmental Consulting Corp. v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 17-CV-7495, holding that a policy exclusion for claims “arising out of” radioactive contamination did not require proximate causation, but rather “some causal relationship” between the contamination and the claim. In Merritt Environmental, an... Read more »