The California Court of Appeal has held that the term “damages” under a standard CGL policy means court-ordered judgments and that affirmative defenses are not “suits” that trigger a duty to defend. (CDM Investors v. Travelers Cas. And Sur. Co. … Read More
A United States District Court held that a D&O insurer had no duty to advance 100 percent of the legal fees incurred by the insured to defend an underlying lawsuit, based on a policy provision giving the insurer power to … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that a named insured’s spouse had standing to sue a CGL insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, even though the spouse was not a named defendant in the underlying suit. (Century Surety … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that, even if an insurer’s rescission of a policy was improper, the insured must still file suit within the time prescribed in the policy’s contractual limitation clause. (Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of … Read More