In Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company, No. 14-cv-6203 (ADS)(AKT) (Oct. 30, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York correctly determined that an “Employer’s Liability” exclusion in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy only applied and precluded coverage when an insured is sued by its own employee(s) and not by an employee(s) of a co-insured. Believing that the exclusion was ambiguous, and based on “the lack of any probative extrinsic evidence” concerning the parties’ intent, the district court applied “the rule of contra preferentem” and found it “appropriate to adopt the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the exclusion because the Plaintiff is the insured and its interpretation of the exclusion is the narrower interpretation.”
Continue Reading Eastern District of New York ultimately arrives at right outcome when interpreting “Employer’s Liability” exclusion in CGL policy
Potentially Fraudulent Insurance Company Practices Are Exposed In Superstorm Sandy Litigation
We recently marked the two year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. With that anniversary came an influx of litigation in response to insurance companies denying or overly limiting coverage. That litigation recently revealed highly questionable practices within the industry.
Continue Reading Potentially Fraudulent Insurance Company Practices Are Exposed In Superstorm Sandy Litigation
A free pass for NICO and Resolute?
A number of insurance companies have recently entered into reinsurance agreements with National Indemnity Company (“NICO”), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. When this occurs – and the arrangements do not require the consent of policyholders – the policyholders unexpectedly find themselves involved with NICO and/or its “affiliated claims adjuster,” Resolute Management, Inc. (“Resolute”). But, what happens when a policyholder disagrees with NICO’s and/or Resolute’s approach to adjusting, defending, or resolving claims?
Continue Reading A free pass for NICO and Resolute?