DO “BURIED TREASURES” EXIST? Part Three of a Three Part Series Ascertaining Whether Buried Treasure Exists Requires a Five-Part Analysis These issues include: 1. Did the company give notice to the insurers on risk as of the date of the first alleged “wrongful act” as well as all subsequent carriers and those at higher levels…
Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2011 WL 767055 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2011) The OneBeacon policy provides “advertising and personal injury liability” coverage for “claims arising from an occurrence committed by the insured during the policy term in or for scheduled advertising and arising from: . . .…
Santa’s Best Craft, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 941 N.E.2d 291, 304-05 (Ill. App. Ct. (1st Dist., 2d Div.) 2010) The court’s decision requiring “actual coverage” only comports with earlier precedent if potential coverage of the claim asserted was found not to be a “primary focus” at the time of settlement. But under Zurich’s…
Welch Foods, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 09-12087-RWZ, 2011 WL 576600 (D. Mass. Feb. 9, 2011) The Court followed American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., 2 A.3d 526, 541 (2010) which embraced the better rule that an insurer is not entitled to reimbursement where it did not reserve…
Advance Watch Co., Ltd. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 10 Civ. 3305 (NRB), 2011 WL 446271 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011) The agreement, allegedly breached, was the touchstone for all claims so that the suit could not be understood as one for violation of intellectual property rights. Rather, it referred to the failure…
Gilbert Texas Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 130 (Tex. 2010) CONTRACTUAL LIABILTY EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE BEYOND NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE INSURED ASSUMES LIABILITY OF ANOTHER PERSON EXCEPTED The underwriter’s interpretation of the policy was the only reasonable one. Its scope was not limited to indemnity and hold harmless…
Wintermute v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co., 630 F.3d 1063, 1069 (8th Cir. (Mo.) 2011) (Arkansas law) Reversing district court, “personal profit” exclusion did not bar indemnity for a “loss” for a “wrongful act” because of “in-fact” language which required adjudication against insured despite the insured’s conviction for a criminal act.
Gauntlett on IP Insurance 