401 Fourth Street Inc. vs. Investors Insurance Group Year: 2003 Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case Number: No. 270 MAP 2003 Issue: Coverage State: Pennsylvania Since the term “collapse” in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, there must be coverage for “imminent collapse” Court quotes UP’s brief.
Dana Corp. vs. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. Year: 1996 Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Case Number: 17171-6-II Issue: Coverage State: Indiana
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company Year: 2002 Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1 Case Number: D038707 Issue: Coverage State: California Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically addressed by court. Companion case to Ace Property.
Fairfield Insurance Co. vs. Stephens Martin Paving Year: 2003 Court: Texas Supreme Court Case Number: RP 04-0728 Issue: Coverage State: Texas The “all sums” language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.
Deni Associates of Florida vs. State Farm Year: 1997 Court: Florida Supreme Court Case Number: Issue: AmbiguityCoveragePollution Exclusion and Coverages State: Florida
Glidden Company vs. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company, et al. Year: 2003 Court: Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District Case Number: 81782 Issue: Coverage State: Ohio This case addresses the availability of insurance coverage to corporate policyholders after corporate transactions. The insurance companies had argued that certain corporate transactions eliminate insurance coverage. The Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed in a significant opinion. They held that the insured was entitled to benefits…
Fluoroware, Inc. vs. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies Year: 1995 Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals Case Number: C3-95-1809; No. CX-95-1810 Issue: Coverage State: Minnesota Insurance companies should not be allowed to keep information supporting coverage from the Courts of their policyholders. Depublication of pro-policyholder decisions should not be condoned.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh vs. Crocker, Beatrice Year: 2005 Court: Texas Supreme Court Case Number: 06-0868 Issue: Coverage State: Texas The Court should confirm the well-established rule that insurance companies owe their policyholders and additional insureds a duty to disclose coverage. Moreover, an insurance company cannot rely on lack of formal notice when it (a) receives actual notice or (b) has not been prejudiced by…
Millers Capital Insurance Company vs. Gambone Brothers Development Co., et al. Year: 2006 Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court Case Number: Docket No. 420 EDA 2007 Issue: Coverage State: Pennsylvania Case involves insurance coverage for property damage resulting from faulty workmanship by an insured contractor and its subcontractors. The standard form general insurance liability policy (“CGL”) was intentionally designed to cover the underlying claims of faulty workmanship.
Powerline Oil Company, Inc. vs. Superior Court of California (Central National Fire Insurance Company) Year: 2002 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S113295 Issue: Coverage State: California When a policy uses the terms “suit” and “claim” in its “ultimate net loss provision, the insurer must provide coverage for a lawsuit in a court of law and other judicial proceedings.
Rosen, George vs. State Farm General Insurance Company Year: 2002 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S108308 Issue: Coverage State: California Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise the result is unconscionable.
Vandenberg, John B. vs. Superior Court of the State of California Year: 1998 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S067115 Issue: Coverage State: California A coverage determination for property damage losses depends on the property itself and the nature of the risk causing the injury. Decision pertains to Commercial General Liability Policies
Uhrich vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Year: 2002 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S117639 Issue: Coverage State: California Letter Brief. A personal liability insurer cannot promise to defend and pay claims for enumerated intentional torts such as false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, or invasion of privacy and then deny coverage because the inherently intentional quality of the insured’s act violates the policy requirement…