In Texas, and as a general rule, only the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the petition against the insured are relevant in deciding whether the duty to defend applies. Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, ___S.W.3d …

Texas Supreme Court Crafts “Undisputed Evidence of Collusive Fraud” Exception to Eight-Corners Rule Read more »

In Hershey Creamery Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-694, 2019 WL 1900397 (M.D. Penn. May 6, 2019) the court found that a self-serve milkshake machine and related display could constitute an “advertisement” for …

Store Display Can Be an “Advertisement” Under Coverage B Read more »

On July 10, 2018, Judge John H. McBryde of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, held an insurer owed no coverage to a New Jersey rock quarry owner for the accidental pumping …

Texas Federal Court Holds Rock Dust Discharged into Stream is Excluded “Pollutant,” so Insurer Owed No Duty to Defend or Indemnify, and Committed No Bad Faith Read more »

On March 1, 2018, an Illinois appellate court held an insurer breached its duties to defend and indemnify a grocer after gang members shot and killed a young woman and injured another outside of the Chicago grocer. The court interpreted …

Illinois Appellate Court Holds Insurer Owed Coverage in Fatal Chicago Gang Shooting Lawsuit, but Insurer Did Not Commit Bad Faith in Denying Claim Read more »

The West Virginia Supreme Court recently granted an insurer the extraordinary legal remedy of a writ of prohibition, awarding it an immediate dismissal of the insureds’ bad faith claims. State ex rel. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. Wilson, ___ S.E.2d …

West Virginia Supreme Court: Bad Faith Claims Are Premature when the Insurer Is Providing a Defense Read more »

On March 13, 2017, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rejected the argument that an insurer does not act in bad faith if it relies on a reasonable interpretation of unsettled case law.  The court explained that …

Pennsylvania Federal District Court: Insurer’s Reliance on “Reasonable” Interpretation of Law Does Not Automatically Bar Bad Faith Read more »

On February 6, 2017, the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, found a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether a Roofing Limitation Endorsement in a liability policy barred the insurer’s duty to defend. Williford Roofing, …

South Carolina Federal District Court: Insurer May Act in Bad Faith by Considering Extrinsic Evidence to Deny Duty to Defend Read more »