Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

In a decision of import to employers and contractors in particular, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has limited the scope of a commercial general liability policy’s “employer liability” exclusionary endorsement, finding that in the case of contractors and subcontractors, the exclusion applies only to bodily injury claims brought by persons who have contracted directly with the policyholder. United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Benchmark Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 14-1832 (1st Cir. August 12, 2015) (“Benchmark”).

Retaining Insurance Coverage in the Face of Late Notice and Misconduct Exclusions, Risk Management
August 24, 2015

Retaining Insurance Coverage in the Face of Late Notice and Misconduct Exclusions – A Texas federal court recently ordered an insurer to reimburse an oil and gas company for costs and expenses incurred while defending against environmental claims.  See Tow v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate (In re ATP Oil & Gas Corp.), No. 14-3280, 2015 WL 3545091 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 5, 2015). The court found that a duty to defend existed even though the insured failed to immediately ...

In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court on August 20, 2015, held that enforcing an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy as a bar to coverage – where the assignment occurred post-loss – was contrary to California Insurance Code Section 520, which provides that consent-to-assignment clauses are invalid if invoked after a loss has happened.  See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.), Case No. S205889 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015).  The opinion overruled the California Supreme Court’s prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003). Henkel had held that corporate successors were not entitled to recovery under an insurance policy assigned without the insurer’s consent, even if the assignment was post-loss and therefore imposed no additional obligations on the insurer. The California Supreme Court’s overruling of Henkel stands to facilitate corporate transactions by making it easier for companies to rely on insurance policies issued to their corporate predecessors.

A federal court in New York recently found that litigation concerning damages related to a third party’s product recall required a defense under a commercial general liability policy. Thruway Produce, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94846 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2015).

On July 28, 2015, the New York Supreme Court in Navigators Insurance Company v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Index No. 653024/2013, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 28, 2015), held that Navigators Insurance Company must defend and indemnify its policyholder for claims seeking statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., despite a policy exclusion for claims involving “[f]ines, penalties, forfeitures or sanctions.”  The decision may have broad implications for policyholders pursuing coverage for the defense of lawsuits seeking statutory damages under privacy and consumer credit statutes, as well as other statutes that have traditionally been viewed to be punitive in nature.

On July 28, 2015, the New York Supreme Court in Navigators Insurance Company v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Index No. 653024/2013, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 28, 2015), held that Navigators Insurance Company must defend and indemnify its policyholder for claims seeking statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., despite a policy exclusion for claims involving “[f]ines, penalties, forfeitures or sanctions.”  The decision may have broad implications for policyholders pursuing coverage for the defense of lawsuits seeking statutory damages under privacy and consumer credit statutes, as well as other statutes that have traditionally been viewed to be punitive in nature.

On July 27, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Kinsale Insurance Company v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, No. 14-60770 (5th Cir. July 27, 2015), that a claim brought by one insured against another insured is not barred by an “insured versus insured” exclusion where the claim is not for “property damage,” but for indemnity arising from a third party’s claim for “property damage.”

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently ruled in Cypress Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.¹ that consequential damages to the common area and units of a condominium complex caused by a subcontractor’s defective work constituted “property damage” and an “occurrence” under the building developer’s standard-form CGL policies, even though the policies were unlikely to cover direct damages like replacement costs. The case serves as a reminder that not all damages are treated alike by insurance policies, and policyholders therefore should not assume that an adverse determination as to one type of loss will apply to all resulting loss.

On May 27, 2015, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Cardigan Mountain School v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., CV 14-2182, 2015 WL 3393771 (1st Cir. May 27, 2015), held that the policyholder, sufficiently pled a plausible case that an insurance policy had been issued by New Hampshire Insurance Company for the period 1967–1968, even though neither party could locate the policy.  The decision demonstrates a favorable application of the “plausibility” pleading standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, in the murky context of a lost insurance policy case.

The Eleventh Circuit recently ruled, applying Alabama law, that a breach of warranty claim constitutes an “occurrence,” triggering coverage under a general liability insurance policy, and that the policy’s contractual liability exclusion does not bar coverage from any resulting liability. See Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. St. Catherine of Siena Parish, No. 14-12151, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9659 (11th Cir. June 10, 2015). The decision underscores that coverage exclusions must be construed narrowly and in favor of coverage, and that insurers must use precise language when they seek to exclude coverage for a particular type of exposure.