“Fireworks Displays or Exhibition” Endorsement Bars Coverage Because it Was Conspicuous, Plain and Clear

Nutter v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
No. 3:10-CV-63, 2011 WL 240458, at *6 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 24, 2011)

The “injury … that result[s] from …[f]ireworks displays or exhibition” endorsement was not concealed in the lengthy policy nor part of buried “fine print” requiring “painstaking study of the policy” to uncover a causal connection to injury to implicate the exclusion.

Advertisements

One thought on ““Fireworks Displays or Exhibition” Endorsement Bars Coverage Because it Was Conspicuous, Plain and Clear

  1. I am an attorney who worked with David Gauntlett as an associate many years go. He was a harsh taskmaster and cut my time routinely to make sure his clients’ bills were fair and reasonable. David is an expert in intellectual property insurance coverage law. He keeps black binders in his office contemporaneously updating every single insurance case that comes down the pipe. He is the only lawyer I have ever worked with in my 30 years of coverage practice who understands and focuses on the controlling and symbiotic relationship between coverage terms and the essential elements of intellectual property claims. His appellate wins have helped to greatly clarify the substance and scope of coverage for intellectual property claims. He literally wrote the book. David Gauntlett, if you are reading this, well done sir, well done indeed!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s