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 April 11, 2017, the Division III Washington Court of Appeals, on a 2 to 1 vote, held that third party administrators and adjusters can be liable in bad faith actions under multiple legal theories.  Merriman v. Am. Guar. & …

Washington: Third-Party Administrators and Adjusters Can Be Liable in Bad Faith Actions 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 »

As the economy recovers from the Great Recession, the insurance industry is experiencing an increase in the need to evaluate risk retention and risk transfer mechanisms tailored to the commercial policyholders’ risk management goals as applied to its policy provisions …

Large Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions – Potential Bad Faith Exposures Read more »

Julia Molander and Jennifer Kennedy-Coggins of the Global Insurance Department present this one-hour Cozen O’Connor webinar which will provide a review of some of the most significant insurance coverage bad faith cases decided across the United States in 2016. The speakers will examine key …

Webinar: Review of Significant Bad Faith Cases in 2016 (3/23/2017 at 11:30a – 12:30p ET) Read more »

The Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri declined to recognize a mediation privilege in In re Lake Lotawana Community Improvement District, 2016 WL 7984347 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2016), despite the fact that it conceded that other …

Mediation Statements in Federal Courts May or May Not be Privileged and Can Be Waived Read more »

On February 24, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court reinstated a state trial court ruling that an “insured-versus insured” exclusion barred coverage under a D&O policy for the costs of defending a lawsuit. Because the D&O insurer demonstrated, as a matter …

“Succeeds to the Interests of” Does Not Require Assumption of Obligations: D&O Policy’s Insured v. Insured Exclusion Applies to Claim Assigned to Fidelity Insurer; No Bad Faith Read more »

The Supreme Court of Alaska in Burnett v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2017 WL 382648 (Alaska 2017) recently decided in a 3-2 decision that an insurer who voluntarily assumed the responsibility for cleaning up an oil spill on a third …

Alaska Creates Exception to General Rule that Injured Party Cannot Sue Insured’s Carrier Read more »

The California Supreme Court recently held, in Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) that attorneys’ invoices may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege after litigation ends. The issue arose out of a lawsuit brought by the …

Are Attorneys’ Bills Privileged Once Litigation Ends – California Supreme Court Says No in ACLU Litigation? Read more »

Earlier this month, the Washington Supreme Court strictly limited Washington’s “Insurance Fair Conduct Act” (IFCA) private cause of action. Enacted in 2007, IFCA provides for uncapped triple-damages awards, and mandates attorney fee awards.  However, the statute’s enabling provisions restrict IFCA …

Alert! — Washington Supreme Court Limits “Insurance Fair Conduct Act” Read more »