Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Insurance

  • July 07, 2025

    Insured’s Late Notice Of Asbestos Suit Was Prejudicial To Excess Insurers

    NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of two excess insurers after determining that the insurers met their burden of showing that they were prejudiced by the insured’s late notice of an underlying asbestos suit filed against the insured.

  • July 02, 2025

    Fungus Coverage Provision Does Not Provide Coverage For Water Loss Claim

    MILWAUKEE — A commercial property insurer did not breach its contract and act in bad faith in refusing to pay an insured’s claim for water damage under the policy’s additional coverage provision for fungus, rot and bacteria because the water damage was caused by repeated seepage or leakage of water, an excluded cause of loss, a Wisconsin federal magistrate judge said July 1 in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss.

  • July 01, 2025

    Insurer Says It Owed No Duty To Defend Water Contamination Suits

    LOS ANGELES — An insurer maintains in opposition to an insured’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that it owed no duty to defend the insured against two water contamination complaints filed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board because the complaints only sought to impose penalties against the insured and did not seek damages as required by the policy.

  • July 01, 2025

    Insured Urges Texas Federal Court To Allow Promissory Estoppel Claim To Proceed

    AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas federal court should not adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss an insured’s counterclaim for promissory estoppel in a dispute over coverage for defective pool shells because the magistrate judge misapplied the legal standard governing promissory estoppel claims, the insured says in its objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

  • July 01, 2025

    Oregon High Court Enters Judgment In Coverage Dispute Over ‘Occurrence’

    SALEM, Ore. — The Oregon Supreme Court entered judgment on its earlier reversal of a holding by lower courts that a commercial general liability insurer owed no duty to indemnify homeowners who sustained water damage in their home due to a cracked and sloped garage floor laid by the insured’s subcontractor.

  • June 30, 2025

    Oral Argument Set In 6th Circuit Appeal Of Collateral Estoppel Appeal

    CINCINNATI — Oral argument is scheduled for July 30 in an insurer’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning a ruling issued in a Michigan federal court that collateral estoppel applies to defense cost expenses resolved in a prior arbitration award as part of a dispute relating to asbestos lawsuits.

  • June 30, 2025

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage For Foundation Damage, Judge Says

    SIOUX CITY, Iowa — An earth movement exclusion clearly applies to bar coverage for foundation damage to an insured home even if the cause of the foundation damage was an excess amount of water flowing from a burst pipe within the home, an Iowa federal judge said in granting a homeowners insurer’s motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims.

  • June 26, 2025

    Pollution Exclusion Applies Even If Permit Regulated Toxic Emissions, Insurer Says

    CHICAGO — Permits or regulations authorizing toxic emissions have no bearing on whether a pollution exclusion applies as a bar to coverage for bodily injury claims related to chemical discharges from an insured facility, a commercial general liability insurer tells the Illinois Supreme Court, which agreed to answer a certified question posed by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals regarding what effect, if any, a permit or regulation that authorizes emissions has in determining how a pollution exclusion should be applied.

  • June 23, 2025

    Insured’s Claims In Contamination Suit Must Be Arbitrated, Judge Says

    PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon federal judge on June 20 granted a motion to compel arbitration and stay an insured’s suit filed against its excess liability insurers and seeking costs for environmental contamination cleanup after determining that the policies at issue clearly require arbitration of the insured’s claims.

  • June 23, 2025

    Insurer Owed No Duty To Ensure Mold Cleanup Work Was Properly Completed

    CHICAGO — An Illinois federal magistrate judge on June 20 partially granted a homeowners insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a breach of contract claim alleging that the insurer owed a duty to ensure that water and mold remediation work at an insured home was properly completed because the policy at issue does not impose any such duty on the insurer.

  • June 23, 2025

    Judge Denies Insured’s Motion For Relief From Judgment In COVID-19 Coverage Suit

    ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. —A federal judge in North Carolina denied a hotel and restaurant owner insured’s motion for relief from a March 4, 2021, judgment dismissing its breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit arising from the coronavirus pandemic, rejecting the insured’s argument that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in N. State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. constitutes extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief.

  • June 20, 2025

    Pollution Liability Insurer Says No Coverage For Underlying Contamination Lawsuits

    HOUSTON — No coverage is owed for two underlying environmental contamination lawsuits filed against the operators of a waste disposal facility because the pollution liability insurance policy precludes coverage for known pollution incidents and because the insured’s transfer of its rights under the policy was not valid, a pollution liability insurer says in a complaint filed in Texas federal court.

  • June 20, 2025

    No Coverage Owed Under Property Insurance Policy For Water Damage, Judge Says

    MINNEAPOLIS — An insurer has no duty to cover water damage stemming from the bursting of frozen water pipes because the insurer met its burden of showing that the damage occurred before its property insurance policy became effective, a Minnesota federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.

  • June 18, 2025

    Insurer Says No Defense Owed To Company For Underlying Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

    ATLANTA — A company that purchased certain assets and liabilities of an insured is not entitled to coverage for underlying lawsuits alleging that hair relaxer products manufactured by the insured and others caused cancer diagnoses in individuals because the insurer did not consent to the transfer of any rights under its policies, the insurer says in a complaint filed in Georgia federal court.

  • June 16, 2025

    Insurer Wants Immediate Appeal Of Attorney Fees Ruling

    NEW ORLEANS — An employer and insurer originally party to a federal asbestos case in Louisiana filed a joint letter spelling out remaining issues in advance of the scheduled July 7 trial while the insurer asked the court to certify for immediate appeal a ruling on liability for attorney fees and costs associated with its insureds’ defense of the claims.

  • June 16, 2025

    Insurer Says Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Silica Dust Exposure Suits

    LOS ANGELES — No coverage is owed for underlying bodily injury suits filed against an insured stemming from silica dust exposure from the insured’s products because the suits are barred by the pollution exclusion contained in primary and excess policies issued to the insured, an insurer maintains in its motion for summary judgment filed in California federal court.

  • June 16, 2025

    Insurer Files Notice Of Supplemental Authorities In Contamination Coverage Suit

    ATLANTA — An insurer on June 13 filed a notice of supplemental authorities in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, citing two cases in support of its argument that no coverage is owed for contamination cleanup costs stemming from the release of petroleum and other contaminants from an underground storage tank at a gas station based on the insured’s late notice.

  • June 16, 2025

    Mold Exclusion Bars Coverage For Underlying Wrongful Death Suit, Panel Says

    TRENTON, N.J. — A trial court erred in finding that a mold exclusion is ambiguous because the exclusion clearly precludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage claims caused directly or indirectly by mold, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division said June 13 in partially reversing a trial court’s ruling.

  • June 13, 2025

    Federal Judge Rules On 8 Motions In Coverage Row Involving Insolvent Insurer

    OMAHA, Neb. — A Nebraska federal judge ruled that adherence to New York law precludes a reinsurer’s breach of warranty defense in National Indemnity Co.’s (NICO) suit to enforce its reinsurers’ obligations for incurred liabilities related to asbestos exposure; the judge also resolved seven additional motions pertaining to claims for novation and various coverage disputes, among others.

  • June 13, 2025

    Split Louisiana Panel Reverses Judgment For Insurer In Asbestos Liability Dispute

    NEW ORLEANS — A split Louisiana appellate court reversed and remanded a lower court’s ruling granting summary judgment to an insurer and to the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) but denying a motion for partial summary judgment filed by family members in a dispute over their deceased relative’s death purportedly from asbestos exposure, finding that issues of fact remain regarding the failure of the insurer and LIGA to show the applicability of a certain policy exclusion to bar coverage.

  • June 11, 2025

    Ferrosilicon Producer Seeks Reconsideration On Discovery Limits In Cleanup Row

    PADUCAH, Ky. — A ferrosilicon producer seeks reconsideration of a Kentucky federal magistrate judge’s ruling limiting the scope of the producer’s issued deposition topics, claiming that the court erred in failing to acknowledge a reinsurer as a proper party in the litigation and misinterpreted its role in a reinsurance contract in a dispute over pollution-related cleanup costs.

  • June 10, 2025

    Insurers Successfully Move To Dismiss Claims In Remediation Coverage Suit

    BALTIMORE — A Maryland federal judge granted motions to dismiss filed by insurers in a suit filed by insureds seeking coverage for an underlying suit stemming from the insureds’ environmental remediation work after determining that one of the insurers met its burden of showing that no coverage is owed under its policy and the other insurer met its burden of showing that the bad faith and vexatious refusal to pay claims cannot survive under New York law, which governs the policy.

  • June 09, 2025

    Trial Court Erred In Jury Instruction On Pro Rata Allocation, New York Panel Says

    NEW YORK — A trial court erred when it instructed a jury to consider a pro rata method of allocation for apportioning damages and retention amounts when deciding whether an insured’s notice to an excess insurer of a claim for environmental remediation costs was timely, a New York appellate court said in reversing a portion of a trial court’s judgment in a longstanding  environmental contamination coverage dispute.

  • June 09, 2025

    Insurer Granted Leave To File Third-Party Complaint In Contamination Suit

    NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on June 6 granted an insurer’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against a number of insurers whose policies may provide coverage for the insureds’ remediation costs incurred as a result of environmental contamination at a Superfund site after determining that the insurer has plausibly stated a claim for contribution against the other insurers.

  • June 09, 2025

    10th Circuit Denies Petition For Rehearing In Environmental Contamination Dispute

    DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied an insured’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, refusing to revisit a panel’s decision that insurers have no duty to defend or provide coverage to an insured for an underlying environmental contamination suit based on the insurers’ pollution exclusions.