HNRK Coverage Corner
- Posts by Bradley J. NashPartner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
On May 9, 2024, Judge Rennie of the Delaware Superior Court issued a decision in Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., Case No. N23C-07-102, holding that an insured’s coverage action against its D&O insurers was premature in light of the policy’s “No Action” clause.
The insured’s primary policy (to which three excess insurers followed form) states:
With respect to any Liability Coverage Part, no action shall be taken against the Insurer unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there has been full compliance with all the terms of this Policy, and until the Insured’s
As policyholder counsel, we’re predisposed to look at insurers with a jaundiced eye. So, we were pleased to read reports that Chubb—the insurer for Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, which collapsed on March 26—is preparing to make a prompt $350 million payment to the State of Maryland.
Where coverage and a loss far exceeding the coverage limits are clear, there is no good faith reason to delay payment. Good to see an insurer doing the right thing.
On April 8, 2024, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Great Am. Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stout Risius Ross, Inc., Case No. 23-1167/1195, holding that, under Michigan law, an insurer was entitled to seek reimbursement of defense costs upon a finding it had no duty to defend.
Although the policy “did not expressly authorize such reimbursement,” the Sixth Circuit, making an “Erie guess” as to how the Michigan Supreme Court would resolve the issue, found that where “an insurer explicitly reserves its right to reimbursement and notifies the insured of the specific possibility of ...
On March 21, 2024, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in SXSW, L.L.C. v. Federal Ins. Co., Case No. 22-50933, holding that a liability policy’s contract and professional services exclusions did not bar defense coverage for a class action lawsuit on behalf of ticket holders seeking refunds for a festival canceled in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In the class action, SXSW, which hosts a yearly festival in Austin, Texas, faced ticket holder claims for breach of contract, as well as unjust enrichment and conversion, arising from its refusal to give refunds (as opposed to ...
HNRK secured a significant and precedential win for Syngenta Crop Protection LLC this week, when the Delaware Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s two summary judgment rulings that its primary and umbrella insurers could not avoid their coverage obligations on the basis of an attorney’s presuit letter claiming Syngenta’s herbicide Paraquat caused his unnamed clients’ alleged injuries. The court rejected the insurers’ argument that the letter constituted a “claim for damages” first made prior to the period covered by the policies and, in so doing, clarified the ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
- HNRK Secures Win for StoneX in Coverage Dispute in New York Supreme Court
- Second Circuit Suggests Contra Proferentem is Used as a “Matter of Last Resort” in Insurance Coverage Disputes—Tell That to Cardozo and Hand
- Hawaii Supreme Court Holds That Insurers May Not Recoup Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims Absent Express Policy Provision for Reimbursement
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- D&O Policies
- Duty to Defend
- CGL Policies
- Policy Exclusions
- Damages
- Occurrence/Accident
- Rules of Interpretation
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- E&O Policies
- Cyber Coverage
- Pollution Exclusion
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Related Claims
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Covered Loss
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018