Showing all results for category “duty to defend”

No Bad-faith Claim Available for Underinsured Motorist Benefits

Don Sampen analyzes a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held an insured has no statutory bad-faith claim against an insurer for an arguable bad-faith delay in the payment of underinsured motorist benefits.

‘Use’ of Vehicle Held to Include Steps in Preparation for Loading

Don Sampen analyzes an Illinois Third District Appellate Court decision that held that a hardware supply store employee’s actions preparing to load a customer’s cargo van qualified as “using” the van under the customer’s auto insurance policy, triggering coverage. This decision, in Menard, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., clarifies that “loading” includes preparatory steps closely connected to the loading process.

Umbrella Insurer Not Obliged to Cover Defense, Court Says

Don Sampen analyzes a 7th Circuit decision upholding the district court’s finding that an umbrella insurer had no duty to defend its insured where the insured also had coverage under a primary policy that contained, not a duty to defend, but a duty to pay legal fees as part of an insured’s total net loss.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment Holding Insurer did not Owe Insured a Duty to Defend or Indemnify in Claims Involving Theft

Mustapha Nyallay and Ramy Elmasri examine a Fifth Circuit decision affirming the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and holding the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the insureds under the policy because the insured’s participation in the Bitcoin theft in the underlying case constituted an intentional act not covered under the insurance policy.

Insurers Defeat Contractor’s Bid for Coverage Over O’Hare Project

Don Sampen analyzes a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a subcontractor’s insurers had no obligation to cover the general contractor for construction defects at O’Hare International Airport due to the lack of “property damage” under the policies. The court affirmed that the damage was confined to the subcontractor’s own defective work, which did not fall under the definition of “property damage,” thereby absolving the insurers their duty to defend.

Court Assesses Facts Necessary to Decide Insurer Duty to Defend

The 1st District Appellate Court recently addressed the limits of “extraneous” facts to be taken into account in deciding whether a complaint against an insured gives rise to a duty to defend.

No Coverage for Sex Misconduct Despite Negligence Allegations

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, July 11, 2023

The 4th District Appellate Court, over a dissent, recently held that a professional liability insurer had no duty to defend a physician and his employer for sexual assault,

California Court of Appeal Rejects Insurer’s Refusal to Defend Frivolous Dog-bite Claim

By Paul V. Esposito

At least for now, an insurer too quickly refused to defend its insured from a lawsuit against her after her boyfriend’s pit bulls attacked two dogs being walked by their owners on a public sidewalk.

Mere Allegations of Negligence by Named Insured, Even Without Evidence of Such Negligence, Trigger Duty to Defend Additional Insured

Under New York law, mere allegations of negligence can trigger a duty to defend an additional insured, even where the additional insured itself makes the allegations against the named insured.

Obligation Found For Allegations ‘Straddling’ Vicarious Liability

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, September 7, 2021

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an additional insurer owed a defense to an additional insured covered only for vicarious liability,