Settlement Uncovered Where Christmas Lights Promoted in Showroom Displays and Selected Customer Presentations

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…

Sherman Antitrust Action Did Not Fall Within “Advertising Injur” Coverage for “Use of Another’s Advertising Idea In Your ‘Advertisement'”

Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., No. 4:09-cv-00135-SEB-WGH, 2011 WL 693601 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2011) Allegations that Rose Acre “marketed” its shell egg products which did not specifically reference Rose Acre’s advertisement of its eggs as properly priced in light of animal husbandry concerns in accordance with a United Egg Products (“UEP”)…

Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) Insurer Must Defend Suit Alone Under Atypical Director and Officer (D&O) Policy “Other Insurance” Provisions

Fieldston Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Hermitage Ins. Co., Inc., 16 N.Y.3d 257, 945 N.E.2d 1013 (2011) The New York Court of Appeals, answering a certified question from the New York Appellate Division concluded that under the terms of Federal’s D & O policy “other insurance” exists which would cover the ‘loss’ arising from the…

“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…

Directors & Officers Insurer Had To Pay For Damages Caused By A “Wrongful Act” Despite “Personal Profit” Exclusion And a Conviction

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.

Professional Service Exclusion Did Not Bar Coverage For Settlement Where Provision Of Credentialed Physicians Was Not Principal Service Provided By Blue Cross

Blue Cross of Idaho Health Serv., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:09-CV-246-CWD, 2011 WL 162283, at *18-19 (D. Idaho Jan. 19, 2011)   Professional Service Exclusion Did Not Bar Coverage For Settlement Where Provision Of Credentialed Physicians Was Not Principal Service Provided By Blue Cross   The court found the “professional service” exclusion…