Showing all results for category “CM Reports”
East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2020 Volume 1
A New Jersey Appellate Court Finds Ambiguity In The Exclusions Section Of A Policy Cannot Create Coverage For An Unlisted Peril
The Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Insureds,
CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2020 Volume 1
Using The Special Interrogatory In Illinois Civil Jury Trials—A Plan Of Action
The plaintiff ’s bar—especially the plaintiff’s personal injury bar—has been clamoring for years in Illinois to abolish the special interrogatory. Plaintiff’s lawyers don’t like the special interrogatory because it places a much needed check on a jury’s rendition of a general verdict.
East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 4
Connecticut Court Holds That Homeowner Has No Coverage Under Property Policy For Defective Foundation
In Jemiola v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 Conn. LEXIS 340, 2019 WL 5955904 (Nov. 12,
CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 4
California Enacts Significant Changes To Davis-Stirling Homeowners Association Laws
On October 12, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 323 (“SB 323”) into law. This new statute makes significant changes to Civil Code § 4000 et seq.,
East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 3
Coverage For Mischief And Vandalism Applies Only To Human Conduct
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that acts of raccoons in causing damage to a dwelling cannot be considered “vandalism and mischief ” so as to fall within the coverage afforded under a specified perils dwelling policy.
CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 3
Spotlight On Clausen Miller’s Diversity And Inclusion Initiatives
Clausen Miller’s Board of Directors is doubling down on its commitment to advance the diversity and inclusion values of the firm. The Board recently announced the goal that by 2021,
East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 2
The Fine Line Between The Duty To Defend And The Duty To Indemnify
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a May 22, 2018, decision and order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut that found the language of an indemnity provision in a contract did not obligate United Illuminating Company (“United”) to indemnify Metro North Transportation Authority and Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (collectively “Metro- North”) for the cost of defending against a personal injury suit because the intent of the language was to provide indemnification only for injuries actually caused by Metro- North.
CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 2
Iowa Supreme Court Declines To Recognize A Common Law Cause Of Action For Bad Faith Against A Claims Administrator Of A Workers’ Compensation Insurer
In De Dios v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N.
East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 1
Coverage For Contaminated Milk? Arguments On Appeal Are Spoiled When Not Raised At Trial
In a contested coverage and contribution lawsuit brought by an insured’s general liability (“GL”) carrier against the insured’s auto liability carrier,
CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2019 Volume 1
Georgia Supreme Court Holds No Bad Faith Failure To Settle Where Settlement Offer Did Not Contain Express Time Limitation
In First Acceptance Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Hughes, No. S18G0517,