THE ONGOING OPERATIONS ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AS A NEW RISK TRANSFER ISSUE FOR COMPLETED OPERATIONS DAMAGE CLAIMS
|
|
- Janice Harrington
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THE ONGOING OPERATIONS ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AS A NEW RISK TRANSFER ISSUE FOR COMPLETED OPERATIONS DAMAGE CLAIMS Mark C. Phillips Partner, Kramer, deboer & Keane, LLP This is really not an insurance coverage discussion, but a pragmatic economic discussion about construction defect litigation. In recent years, developers and general contractors have found increasing limitations placed upon their own direct insurance, as old policies exhaust and new policies are written with various exclusions and perhaps a self-insured retention provision. Developers and general contractors have been forced to look more to the Additional Insured Endorsement ( AIE ) in their trade contractors policies in order to fund their defense. The issue, as they see it, is whether they can rely upon the AIE as a risk-transfer opportunity, 1 one which might also lower the premium for their own liability insurance. 2 Additional Insured Coverage: An Overview Many prime contracts and subcontracts for construction projects include the requirement that owners, lenders, developers, general contractors, architects, and various key personnel be identified as additional insureds on a trade contractor s Commercial General Liability insurance policy for liability arising out of the trade contractor s work. 3 As one court explained: Since construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation in procuring an additional insured endorsement is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor s liability is claimed to be derivative. 4 Typically such coverage is written by way of an AIE, but sometimes the coverage is endorsed through an amendatory endorsement which expands the definition of Who is an Insured. Provided that the purported additional insured individual or entity qualifies as such, they are entitled to benefits under the policy, subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy, without having to pay any premium for the coverage. 5 An AIE provision which is found frequently in construction defect litigation states that the additional insured is entitled to coverage only for vicarious liability arising out of acts performed by the named insured for the additional insured. For example: 1 See, e.g., North American Capacity Ins. Co. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co., 177 Cal.App.4th 272, 276 (2009). 2 See, e.g., Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 86, (2002). 3 See, e.g., Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc., 13 Cal.3d 622, 626 (1975); see also, e.g., AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. 4 See Maryland Cas. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 65 Cal.App.4th 21, 33 (1998). 5 See, e.g., Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Penn.,148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303 (2007); see also, e.g., Presley Homes, Inc. v. American States Ins. Co., 90 Cal.App.4th 571, 577 (2001). 1 P a g e
2 Who is An Insured (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your work for that insured by or for you. [ISO Form CG /85] Who is An Insured (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured. [ISO Form CG /93] Thus, not every AIE provides the same types of coverage to the purported additional insured. Each provision must be read carefully and in the context of the overall policy. Some AIEs do not afford coverage to the additional insured for liability arising out of its own acts or omissions. 6 Other AIEs might afford coverage without regard to whether the alleged injury or damage was caused by either the named insured or the additional insured. 7 Yet other AIEs might afford coverage for the additional insured s sole negligence. 8 And other AIEs may expressly exclude coverage for liability arising out of the additional insured s acts or omissions. 9 Unlike Crawford demands or other risk transfer opportunities which entail an allocation of liability, an insurer s defense obligation to the additional insured must extend to defense of the entire underlying action, even if the additional insured must defend against other claims which are unrelated to the named insured s scope of work. For example, if triggered, the much-maligned doorbell installer s policy is required to afford a defense to a general contractor for more than just claims alleging door bells, but also claims alleging electrical, drywall and framing damages too. 10 The general contractor might be an additional insured under multiple policies issued to various trade contractors, but if the doorbell installer s policy has the only operative AIE, the legal expense which its carrier must pay could well be in the six figures or more to defend issues far exceeding the doorbell installer s presumably modest indemnity exposure. Ongoing Operations Endorsements Many construction defect lawsuits are filed after the construction project is completed, viz. the lawsuit concerns a completed operations claim. When a trade contractor s CGL policy is issued after the named insured s work is completed, this is referred to as a completed operations policy. Some attorneys and claims professionals take the position that only an AIE within a completed operations policy which affords coverage for liability arising out of the named insured s completed operations will apply to such claims. The analysis often has turned on the wording of the AIE. 6 See, e.g., Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enterprises, 69 Cal.App.4th 321, 330 (1999); see also, e.g., National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 69 Cal.App.4th 709, 720 (1999). 7 See, e.g., Fireman s Fund Insurance Company v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 94 Cal.App.4th 842, 849 (2001). 8 See, e.g., Chevron USA, Inc. v. Bragg Crane & Rigging Co., 180 Cal.App.3d 639, 646 (1986). 9 See, e.g., Presley Homes, 90 Cal.App.4th at See, e.g., Presley Homes, 90 Cal.App.4th at P a g e
3 The Fourth District California Court of Appeal dealt with this issue in Pardee Construction Company v. Insurance Company of the West. 11 The case involved a large residential tract housing project built in a San Diego suburb over multiple phases in the mid-to-late 1980s. The developer s subcontracts included the requirement that each trade contractor maintain completed operations CGL coverage, and that the developer be named as an additional insured on the policy. The homeowners association sued the developer for construction defects in 1995, and the developer tendered its defense to the trade contractors insurers. Some of the carriers provided the developer with a defense, but only as to claims arising out of their named insured s scope of work in this pre-presley era. Other carriers declined the developer s tender, which left the developer with an unfunded amount of defense costs which it was required to pay itself. The case eventually settled and the developer funded part of the settlement. Shortly thereafter, the developer sued the recalcitrant carriers for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud and declaratory relief. The trial court granted dispositive motions in favor of the carriers, and the developer appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding in favor of the developer because the AIEs contained comparable language found in the CG /85 form quoted above; the Court of Appeal held that they applied to completed operations claims such as these and were not limited to project-specific claims. The Pardee case is best known today for dictum concerning its interpretation of the CG /93 endorsement quoted above. This dictum, which did not affect the holding of the case, has fueled subsequent discussion about whether that endorsement affords additional insured coverage for completed operations claims. The Court of Appeal, in reliance on insurance industry commentaries, stated: Moreover, in 1993, the Insurance Services Office (ISO) revised the language of the form 2010 endorsement utilized by the insurance industry to expressly restrict coverage for an additional insured to the ongoing operations of the named insured. This revised language effectively precludes application of the endorsement's coverage to completed operations losses. [Citation.] One insurance commentator stated regarding the 1993 revisions of the standard additional insured endorsement forms: The restriction of coverage in the two endorsements to only ongoing operations makes it clear that additional insureds will have no coverage under the named insured s policy for liability arising out of the products-completed operations exposure.... The effect of this change restricting the coverage to ongoing operations is, however, much more profound on [form 2010]. Previous editions of [that form] contained no completed operations exclusion and, thus, could be called on to cover an additional insured for liability arising out of the products-completed operations hazard. Similarly, construction industry and underwriting spokespersons have echoed this assessment: "Completed Operations Coverage. Prior to the revisions, the standard ISO additional insured endorsements provided the additional insured with coverage for liability arising out of your operations performed for the additional insured, which included completed operations. More recent editions of 11 See Pardee Construction Co. v. Ins. Co. of the West, 77 Cal.App.4th 1340 (2000). 3 P a g e
4 these endorsements provide coverage only with respect to your ongoing operations, which effectively eliminates coverage for completed operations. [Citation.] Although these 1993 revisions postdated the insurers policies here with the exception of U.S. Fire, they evince as to Nationwide and ICW alternative express limiting language that could have been employed. 12 In a post-pardee world, many attorneys and claims professionals have concluded, at least in California, that a completed operations policy which includes an ongoing operations AIE does not afford additional insured coverage for a completed operations claim arising out of the named insured s work. 13 However, this position is being revisited in light of a trio of recent unpublished Federal Court opinions. They do not look to Pardee s reliance on insurance industry commentaries, but instead construe the ongoing operations language in the AIE. In Jaynes Corporation v. American Safety Indemnity Company, 14 an unpublished Federal Court ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, a general contractor hired a concrete trade contractor to help build a residential tract project in Henderson, Nevada. Pursuant to the subcontract, the trade contractor agreed to procure additional insured coverage for the general contractor. The AIE provided in pertinent part: WHO IS AN INSURED (SECTION II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your work which is performed at the project designated above. This Endorsement applies only to ongoing operations performed by the Named Insured on or after the effective date of this Endorsement. The homeowner association sued the general contractor in state court for defective construction. The general contractor tendered its defense to the concrete contractor s insurer, who declined the tender. The general contractor sued the insurer in Federal Court while the construction defect action was being litigated in state court. Both sides filed Motions for Summary Judgment in Federal Court on whether the AIE triggered a defense obligation to the general contractor in the underlying state court action. A threshold issue was whether the general contractor had standing to sue, since its direct carrier was defending it already in the underlying action. The general contractor overcame that objection by establishing that it was responsible for a portion of its own defense costs. The insurer cited Pardee for the proposition that an ongoing operations AIE does not afford additional insured coverage for claims which inherently involve completed work, not works in progress. The general contractor argued that this AIE does not limit coverage to only the alleged damage which 12 See, e.g., Pardee Construction Co., supra 77 Cal.App.4th at Few subsequent published opinions have cited Pardee on this issue, probably because they are factually distinguishable from Pardee. For a published Colorado opinion which relied on Pardee, see, e.g., Weitz Co, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 181 P.2d 309 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). 14 See Jaynes Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., No. 2:10-cv MMD-GWF (D. Nev 2012). 4 P a g e
5 occurs during the named insured s ongoing operations, but also covers alleged damage which occurs after the operation is completed but which was caused by ongoing operations. The Court agreed with the general contractor, citing two Federal Court opinions based on similarlyworded AIE language and analogous facts. One (Tri-Star Theme Builders, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Company) is an unpublished decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Arizona. 15 The other (McMillin Construction Services, L.P. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company) is from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 16 Both Courts had concluded that the phrase ongoing operations was ambiguous to a reasonable layperson, thereby rejecting the insurers arguments that a Pardee-type rule should apply automatically. The Jaynes Court agreed, stating: The key phrase arising out of the Named Insured s ongoing operations (which is not defined) addresses only the type of activity (ongoing operations) from which the... [additional insured s] liabilities must arise in order to be covered, not when the injury or damage must occur. In other words, this language does not state that injury must occur, or liability must occur, during the Named Insured s ongoing operations, but rather requires only that the liability arise out of the ongoing operations, which may require only a minimal causal connection between the liability and the ongoing operations... At the very least, there is an argument that the endorsement s undefined language is ambiguous and should be construed against the drafter. * * * [T]o construe the plain language of a contractual provision as [the insurer] desires that an AI s coverage for liability arising out of a subcontractor s ongoing operations is restricted to coverage for damages occurring during the subcontractor s operations would be so counterintuitive as to be absurd, and would render the arising out of clause needless surplusage. The sound principles of contract interpretation dictate that the Court must follow [the general contractor s] far more reasonable interpretation. [Citation.] * * * [T]he cases that have limited coverage of the additional insured endorsement to damage occurring during the named insured s ongoing operations have not relied on the plain language of the clause. Instead, they have drawn inferences regarding the scope of coverage by relying on the drafting history of the clause by the insurance company. [Citations.] In fact, these cases reach their conclusion that the ongoing operations clause limits AI coverage to damage taking place during a subcontractor s operations only after tracing the development of ongoing operations clauses in the insurance industry from the early 1990s onward. [Citations.] While this history lesson makes for an interesting read, it is not persuasive in the face of the plain language of the ongoing operations clause.... such evidence might be persuasive if the controversy... were between two 15 See Tri-Star Theme Builders, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 2011 WL (9th Cir. 2011). The Jaynes Court acknowledged that Tri-Star has no precedential value because it is an unpublished opinion, but cited Tri-Star because it found the Ninth Circuit s reasoning persuasive on construing an AIE which was comparable to the one litigated in Jaynes. 16 See McMillin Construction Services, L.P. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2012 WL (S.D. Cal. 2012). 5 P a g e
6 insurers, or if it suggested that the language reflected the mutual intent of the parties. This evidence is wholly lacking here. Indeed,... the only court to construe the additional insured endorsement, without reference to the industry s drafting history, held that it provided coverage for damages occurring after the completion of operations. What these Federal Court cases teach is that at least some Courts may consider the terms arising out of and ongoing operations ambiguous. The result is that an ongoing operations AIE could be construed in favor of the purported additional insured, thereby affording coverage in some circumstances. The decision to afford coverage might be clearer if, for example, the named insured performed its work during the policy term, and not before the insurance policy incepted. There is also an issue of what type of work the named insured performed, which might infer what type of injury or damage might occur. The AIE language litigated in these three Federal Court cases address only the type of activity performed by the named insured, not when the alleged injury or damage must occur. While some courts might conclude that the alleged injury or damage must occur during the course of construction, viz. prior to the project s completion, another possible interpretation is that coverage could be afforded for a completed operations claim, so long as the alleged injury or damage arose from the named insured s ongoing operations. The arising out of language used here is arguably very broad, requiring only a minimal causal nexus between the ongoing operations and the resulting injury or damage. Not all Federal Courts have taken this approach. In another unreported U.S. District Court case from the Southern District of California (D.R. Horton L.A. Holding Company v. American Safety Indemnity Company), 17 the Court chose to follow Pardee and omitted any discussion of the Tri-Star case (McMillin and Jaynes had not been decided yet). To this Court, the timing of the alleged damage was an important factor because ongoing operations meant injury or damage which occurs during the course of construction. Thus, an ongoing operations AIE should not apply to a claim for injury or damage which occurs after the completion of construction. Conclusion These recent Federal Court opinions show that Pardee is not necessarily iron-clad law on AIE tenders, and that reasonable minds can differ on how to apply an ongoing operations AIE as a risk transfer vehicle in a completed operations construction defect claim. California courts may take a harder look at the ongoing operations AIE as other sources of defense funding become harder to secure. Judges state repeatedly that insurers have an opportunity to limit the scope of coverage by rewriting their policy language. The renewed debate over the application of an ongoing operations AIE in a completed operations claim is a good example of the never-ending search for the clearest possible contractual meaning. In the meantime, developers and general contractors are engaged in their own never-ending search for risk transfer opportunities. CAVEAT: THE FOREGOING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. PLEASE CONSULT AN ATTORNEY FOR INDIVIDUAL ADVICE REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. 17 See D.R. Horton L.A. Holding Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., 2012 WL (S.D. Cal. 2012). 6 P a g e
Recent Trends in California Indemnity and Additional Insured Law Impacting Construction Disputes
Recent Trends in California Indemnity and Additional Insured Law Impacting Construction Disputes I. INDEMNITY ISSUES A. Indemnity Defined: In general, indemnity refers to the obligation resting on one
More informationWhat's the Deal? Additional Insured and Other Insurance Provisions
CLM 2016 National Construction Claims Conference September 28-30, 2016 San Diego, CA What's the Deal? Additional Insured and Other Insurance Provisions I. Ongoing Operations Ongoing Additional Insured
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 12/5/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B239533 (Los Angeles
More informationSharing the Misery: Defects with Construction Defect Coverage
CLM 2016 National Construction Claims Conference September 28-30, 2016 San Diego, CA Sharing the Misery: Defects with Construction Defect Coverage I. A brief history of the law regarding insurance coverage
More informationPCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar
PCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar September 18-19, 2017 Insurance Law Developments Laura A. Foggan Crowell & Moring LLP lfoggan@crowell.com 202-624-2774 Crowell & Moring 1 Zhaoyun Xia v. ProBuilders
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationIndemnification Agreements
NUCA Contracts Risk Management Manual Indemnification Agreements Atlanta, Georgia Charlotte, North Carolina Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Las Vegas, Nevada Tallahassee, Florida INTRODUCTION Owners who hire general
More informationADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE
ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE MAXIMIZING COVERAGE IN A POST-BURLINGTON WORLD JEFFREY J. VITA, ESQ. Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. January 31, 2018 Additional Insured Coverage Maximizing Coverage in a Post-Burlington
More informationPitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds
BluePrint For Design Professionals Pitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds By Thomas Hay and Kevin Kieffer Architects and engineers who obtain professional liability
More informationCase 1:17-cv LTS Document 42 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11524-LTS Document 42 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 17-11524-LTS KEYSTONE ELEVATOR SERVICE
More informationTo Defend or Not to Defend: The Dilemma for Carriers, Subcontractors and Their Counsel
2017 CLM & Business Insurance Construction Conference October 9-11, 2017 San Diego, CA To Defend or Not to Defend: The Dilemma for Carriers, Subcontractors and Their Counsel I. Duty to Defend The carriers
More informationCase 9:16-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-80987-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 THE MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, and NORMAN SLOANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
More informationReese J. Henderson, Jr., Esq., B.C.S
Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.: Balancing the Interests Surrounding Potential Insurance Coverage for Chapter 558 Notices of Claim February 23, 2018 Reese J. Henderson, Jr.,
More informationCOMMENTARY. Navigating the Treacherous Waters of California s Expanded Anti-Indemnity Laws for Construction Projects JONES DAY
April 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Navigating the Treacherous Waters of California s Expanded Anti-Indemnity Laws for Construction Projects California s long-standing anti-indemnity laws prohibit a public
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 8/16/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ALUMA SYSTEMS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,
More informationNORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW
NORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER WINTER 2018 Williams Kastner has been serving clients in the Pacific Nor thwest since our Seattle office opened in 1929. With more than 60 attorneys in offices
More informationEditors: Joanna L. Crosby Linda Tai Hoshide Michael W. Morrison Kathleen A. Sweitzer
February 2012 Commercial General Liability Dispatch Editors: Joanna L. Crosby Linda Tai Hoshide Michael W. Morrison Kathleen A. Sweitzer Volume 3 Issue 2 In This Issue... California Federal Court Decides
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
More informationJANUARY 25, 2012 NO CA-0820 BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT
BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. VERSUS FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CHATEAUX DIJON LAND, L.L.C., D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CDJ APARTMENTS,
More informationSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA. Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP June 3, 2017
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP June 3, 2017 2 Engineer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Client Suggested changes: Delete the word defend Edit
More informationINSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL
INSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL 2601 AIRPORT DR., SUITE 360 TORRANCE, CA 90505 tel: 310.784.2443 fax: 310.784.2444 www.bolender-firm.com 1. What does it mean to say someone is Cumis counsel or independent counsel?
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-000-lab-wvg Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. WILLIS ALLEN REAL ESTATE, Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 4 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOTCHALK, INC. No. 16-17287 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03883-CW
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Kavanaugh Supply, LLC et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/30/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PULTE HOME CORPORATION, D070478 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY
More information[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No: 0:11-cv JIC.
James River Insurance Company v. Fortress Systems, LLC, et al Doc. 1107536055 Case: 13-10564 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10564
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Wells v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Noah Wells d/b/a Centerpoint Chimney v. Civil No. 17-cv-669-JD Opinion No. 2018 DNH
More informationI. Introduction. Appeals this year was Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 COA
Fisher v. State Farm: A Case Analysis September 2015 By David S. Canter I. Introduction One of the most important opinions to be handed down from the Colorado Court of Appeals this year was Fisher v. State
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 3/23/15 Brenegan v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 No. 06-0867 444444444444 PINE OAK BUILDERS, INC., PETITIONER, V. GREAT AMERICAN LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE CO.. Defendants. Case No.
More informationCONSTRUCTION DEFECTS INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES Amy J. Kallal Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 (212) 804-4200 akallal@moundcotton.com Construction/Homebuilding
More informationAspen Specialty Ins. Co. v Ironshore Indem. Inc NY Slip Op 31169(U) July 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013
Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v Ironshore Indem. Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 31169(U) July 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160353/2013 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION FRED L. SHUCHART COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas 77002 7th Annual Construction Law Symposium January
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 27, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 236823 Oakland Circuit Court AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., LC
More informationWhen Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer?
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer? Michael John Miguel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Los Angeles, California The limit of liability theory lies within the imagination of the
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA70 Court of Appeals No. 14CA0782 Boulder County District Court No. 12CV30342 Honorable Andrew Hartman, Judge Steffan Tubbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange,
More informationState By State Survey:
Connecticut California Florida State By State Survey: and Exhaustion in the Additional Insured Context The Right Choice for Policyholders www.sdvlaw.com and Exhaustion 2 and Exhaustion in the Additional
More informationIndustrial Systems, Inc. and Amako Resort Construction (U.S.), Inc., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Copper v. Industrial COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA0560 Summit County District Court No. 02CV264 Honorable David R. Lass, Judge Copper Mountain, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Industrial
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, SHORENSTEIN REALTY SERVICES, LP; SHORENSTEIN MANAGEMENT,
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationForest Labs., Inc. v A rch Ins. Co.
Forest Labs., Inc. v A rch Ins. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 22291 [38 Misc 3d 260] September 12, 2012 Schweitzer, J. Supreme Court, New York County Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
More informationQuincy Mutual Fire Insurance C v. Imperium Insurance Co
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-29-2016 Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance C v. Imperium Insurance Co Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationIn this diversity case, plaintiff, Diamond Glass Companies, Inc. ( Diamond ), has filed this suit against defendants Twin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x DIAMOND GLASS COMPANIES, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : 06-CV-13105(BSJ)(AJP) : v. : Order : TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE
More information* * * * * * * BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH REASONS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/FESTIVAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DEBORAH DANIELS VERSUS SMG CRYSTAL, LLC., THE LOUISIANA STADIUM & EXPOSITION DISTRICT, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE DEF INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-CA-1012 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
BOB MEYER COMMUNITIES, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION JAMES R. SLIM PLASTERING, INC., B&R MASONRY, and T.R.H. BUILDERS, INC., and Defendants,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FH MARTIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 11, 2010 v No. 289747 Oakland Circuit Court SECURA INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC., LC No. 2008-089171-CZ
More informationADDRESSING MULTIPLE CLAIMS.
0022 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:43 EDT 2008 IV. ADDRESSING MULTIPLE CLAIMS. 41.11 Consider Insurance Provisions as to Multiple Claims and Interrelated Wrongful Acts. 41.11[1]
More informationTRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016
TRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016 Benjamin C. Eggert Partner WILEY REIN LLP wileyrein.com Introduction Ideally, the criminal justice system would punish only the guilty, and
More informationAlfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-12-2014 Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationTHE 24TH ANNUAL INSURANCE SYMPOSIUM: ALLOCATION & OTHER INSURANCE ROBERT J. WITMEYER & KATYA G. LONG
THE 24TH ANNUAL INSURANCE SYMPOSIUM: ALLOCATION & OTHER INSURANCE BY: ROBERT J. WITMEYER & KATYA G. LONG 2017 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. It is not intended
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2017 Plaintiff, v No. 329277 Oakl Circuit Court XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., ZURICH LC No. 2014-139843-CB
More informationCase 3:14-cv WWE Document 96 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-00259-WWE Document 96 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JAMES THOMPSON, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : 3:14-CV-00259-WWE : NATIONAL UNION FIRE
More informationSubcontractor Work Authorization Form
Subcontractor Work Authorization Form Date: Project Name and Address Project Owner and Address: Project Lender and Address: (if any - use address of branch) Direct Contractor Name and Address: (if direct
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 10, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 10, 2004 Session BRADLEY C. FLEET, ET AL. v. LEAMON BUSSELL, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Claiborne County No. 8586 Conrad E. Troutman,
More informationPrudential Prop v. Boyle
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-31-2008 Prudential Prop v. Boyle Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3930 Follow this
More informationDecided: April 20, S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 20, 2015 S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. ( Piedmont
More informationTRENDS IN ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE
Workshop W7 Wednesday, November 14 1:30 3:30 p.m. TRENDS IN ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE Presented by Craig F. Stanovich Principal Consultant Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC The scope of coverage provided
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 4, 2011 Docket No. 29,537 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CHRISTINE SANDOVAL and MELISSA
More informationErcole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2014 Ercole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationProcedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions
Procedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions New York City Bar Association October 24, 2016 Eric A. Portuguese Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP 1 Introduction Purpose of
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 12/14/11; pub. order 1/6/12 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D057673 (Super.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/27/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-complainant and Respondent,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No CV-3-LAC-MD
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-15396 D. C. Docket No. 05-00401-CV-3-LAC-MD FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 JOHN LEY
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :-cv-0-sc Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
More informationWHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE? By Robert M. Hall Mr. Hall is an attorney, a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an insurance
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
16-3929-cv (L) Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
Appeal: 14-1239 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 20 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1239 CAPITAL CITY REAL ESTATE, LLC, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
More informationAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of TexasUSDC 4:08-CV-21
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ACADEMY DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; CHELSEA HARBOUR, LIMITED; LEGEND CLASSIC HOMES, LIMITED; LEGEND HOME CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALI AHMAD BAKRI, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326109 Wayne Circuit Court SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, also LC No. 13-006364-NI known as HARTFORD
More informationINSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION WHAT YOU DON T KNOW CAN COST YOU
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF OKLAHOMA INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION WHAT YOU DON T KNOW CAN COST YOU Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP October 27, 2017 The Design Agreement Establishes each party
More informationNavigating the Waters of Large SIRs and Deductibles
2016 CLM Annual Conference April 6-8, 2016 Orlando, FL Navigating the Waters of Large SIRs and Deductibles I. Issue: Is There a Duty to Defend Before the SIR is Satisfied? A. California In Evanston Ins.
More information2018 CO 42. No. 15SC934, Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga Unreasonable Delay and Denial of Insurance Benefits Damages.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1943 GeoVera Specialty Insurance * Company, formerly known as * USF&G Specialty Insurance * Company, * * Appeal from the United States Appellant,
More informationOF FLORIDA. ** Appellant, ** vs. CASE NO. 3D ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO TRIPP CONSTRUCTION, INC., ** Appellee. **
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002 Appellant,
More informationSHAWN MICHAEL GAYDOS, Plaintiff/Appellant, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00527-CV In re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY O P I N I O N Real party in interest Guy
More information2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE. By Jennifer Kelley
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Ins. Co., No. 11-0394, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Aug. 23,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 04/28/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS POLARIS HOME FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 295069 Kent Circuit Court AMERA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LC No. 08-009667-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 10/09/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationLeague of California Cities City Attorney Spring Conference. Monterey, CA May 2, 2007
League of California Cities City Attorney Spring Conference Monterey, CA May 2, 2007 Architect and Engineer Design Liability and AB 573: Big Deal, or Ho-Hum? Roland Nikles 1 Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes 1300
More informationManaging design professional risks arising out of the Prime/Subcontractor relationship
Managing design professional risks arising out of the Prime/Subcontractor relationship June 22, 2017 Gail S. Kelley P.E., Esq., LEED AP J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Copyright Information
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane
Case 1:16-cv-01850-JLK Document 23 Filed 08/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Civil Action No. 16-cv-1850-JLK MINUTE KEY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John
More informationResponding to Allegations of Bad Faith
Responding to Allegations of Bad Faith Matthew M. Haar Saul Ewing LLP 2 N. Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7508 mhaar@saul.com Matthew M. Haar is a litigation attorney in Saul Ewing
More informationr- Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
140 Cal.AppAth 874,44 Cal.Rptr.3d 841, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Servo 5462,06 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7962 Page 1 r- Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMER- ICA
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROBERT PHELPS, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 0174-08T3 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP,
More informationNW 2d Wis: Court of Appeals 2004
Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more! 689 NW2d 911 Search Scholar Preferences Sign in Advanced Scholar Search Read this case How cited Degenhardt-Wallace v. HOSKINS, KALNINS, 689 NW 2d 911 -
More informationRecent Developments in Construction Coverage
Recent Developments in Construction Coverage R. Brent Cooper Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712-9501 Email: brent.cooper@cooperscully.com 2016 This
More informationTO DEFEND OR NOT TO DEFEND
CARL WARREN & COMPANY TO DEFEND OR NOT TO DEFEND The Dilemma for Carriers, Subcontractors and their Counsel in Construction Defect Cases Don Soto, James Hailey, Jayne Pittman and Caryn Siebert presented
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE
More informationInsurance Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Defective Workmanship
Insurance Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Defective Workmanship CLIENT ALERT April 2017 James D. Hollyday hollydayj@pepperlaw.com ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF CONTENTION BETWEEN INSURERS AND INSUREDS
More informationAnderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2013-2014 Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 06-1018 444444444444 D.R. HORTON-TEXAS, LTD., PETITIONER, v. MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationTarron L. Gartner-Ilai Cooper & Scully, PC 900 Jackson Street Suite 200 Dallas, Texas (214)
Tarron L. Gartner-Ilai Cooper & Scully, PC 900 Jackson Street Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 712-9570 Tarron.gartner@cooperscully.com 2018 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Reinicke Athens Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION REINICKE ATHENS INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. v. Judge John Robert Blakey MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LLOYD S SYNDICATE 3624, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-115 v. Judge John Robert Blakey BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CENTER OF ILLINOIS, LLC,
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION COVERAGE
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION COVERAGE Fred L. Shuchart Cooper & Scully, P.C. 815 Walker Street, Suite 1040 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-236 236-68106810 Telecopy: 713-236 236-68806880 Email:
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case
More information