A non-admitted insurer was not bound by a retail insurance broker’s issuance of an endorsement which purported to list a developer as an “additional insured” on the insurer’s policy. ( Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. American Safety Ins. … Read More

A first-party property insurance exclusion that purports to eliminate coverage for “any” insured when another insured commits arson is broader than allowed by California law and, therefore, unenforceable. ( Century-National Insurance Co. v. Garcia (2011) WL 537627) Facts Jesus Garcia … Read More

A federal administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge qualified as a “suit,” thus triggering an insurer’s duty to defend under a policy that did not define the term “suit.” ( Ameron Int’l Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State … Read More

A suit against an insured seeking damages for “loss” of property was not a suit seeking damages for “loss of use” of property within the meaning of a standard commercial general liability policy. ( Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance … Read More

An insurer who fails to follow its own underwriting guidelines’ investigation requirements, and who as a result does not discover an applicant’s material misrepresentations, may still raise the applicant’s misrepresentations as a defense to coverage. ( Colony Ins. Co. v. … Read More

A general liability policy’s “anti- Montrose ” endorsements did not eliminate an insurer’s duty to defend an insured subcontractor in a construction defect case involving “continuous and progressively-deteriorating” property damage. ( Pennsylvania General Ins. Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. … Read More

An insurer was found to have acted in bad faith in failing to defend and indemnify its insured, a catholic bishop, in a case arising from a priest’s sexual molestation of a young parishioner. ( Howard v. American National Fire … Read More

In light of the “going and coming” rule’s “required vehicle” exception, an employee was an “insured” for an auto accident while driving to work, with the result that his employer’s liability was barred from coverage by an “auto” exclusion in … Read More

Where an insured contends an insurer fraudulently induced the insured into entering into a settlement agreement, the insured cannot affirm the agreement, keep the money and sue for damages but, instead, must seek to rescind the settlement agreement in accordance … Read More

In the context of a general liability policy as a whole, a $25,000 “per claim” self-insured retention endorsement applied only once to a construction defect action involving multiple homes. ( Clarendon America Ins. Co. v. North American Capacity Ins. Co. … Read More