In the recent decision Three Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 18 C.D.O.S10377, a California appellate court held that insurance covered the loss of value of a business resulting form the business losing its permit to operate a nightclub in its premises. The case provided well-needed clarification in a confusing area of law and provides some key lessons for lawyers when pleading their cases.
In its recent decision in Nautilus Ins. Co. v. EJIII Development Co., No. 1:17-cv-2048-TCB (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that insurer Nautilus Insurance Company did not have to provide a defense to a wrongful death lawsuit where its insurance policy contained an assault-and-battery exclusion and an endorsement covering “security and patrol agency services.”
The Notice-Prejudice Rule provides protection to policyholders by requiring an insurer show it was substantially prejudiced by the failure of a policyholder to promptly notify it of a claim. Essentially, insurers need to argue that because of late or delayed notice of the claim, the loss cannot be adequately investigated and assessed and therefore the indemnity obligation no longer exists.
Most business owners are keenly aware of the sensitive nature of their commercial relationships. Ship one faulty product or fail to deliver exactly as promised and they can be liable not only for any resulting damage but the reputational harm that comes with failing to meet customer expectations.
A District court in California recently found an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify under a commercial liability insurance policy where a claim of slander arose out of an alleged breach of contract. Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Caden Cos., No. CV 17-02369 AB (PLAx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213387 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017).
In a recent case, a Federal district court in California held that a commercial property policy’s use of the word “and” entitled the insured to the remainder of the policy limits, amounting to an additional $122,000 in coverage. Mullins v. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-02518-JST, 2017 WL 6539800 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
Certificates of insurance pose major problems for all parties – the insurance company, agents, and the insured.
Contact information for the Department of Insurance for California Fire victims
Insurance companies sell liability insurance policies that promise to pay the costs necessary to defend insureds in lawsuits brought against them.
People often use the words "agent" and "broker" interchangeably. Lawyers and judges often do, too. Although obtaining a policy by either an agent or broker may seem trivial, the distinction is one of major legal importance. And often times, the lines are blurred.