On June 6, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found, consistent with longstanding California precedent, that a material misrepresentation made in the course of a coverage investigation voids coverage. The holding reaffirms the importance of …

Eastern District of California Dismisses Bad Faith Action, Where Misrepresentation Voids Policy Read more »

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit, applying Georgia law, reaffirmed that an insurer cannot be liable for negligently failing to settle a case unless the settlement demand provides protection to the insured against all potential claims, even those which have not been …

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms There Is No Bad Faith Unless the Settlement Offer Fully Protects the Insured Read more »

The Third District Court of Appeals finding recently held that in certain circumstances, a third party can maintain a bad faith claim against an insurer even if the insured is not exposed to liability in excess of the policy limits. …

Florida Alert: Can a Liability Carrier be Sued for Bad Faith when Its Insured Was Not Exposed to Liability In Excess of the Policy Limits? 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 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 »

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 »

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 »

Mississippi essentially has three levels of claim when insurance is at issue: (1) mere breach of contract, allowing recovery of contract damages; (2) breach of contract + no arguable basis for breach, which entitles recovery of consequential damages; and (3) …

Fifth Circuit Provides Road Map for Review and Trial of Bad Faith Claims in Mississippi Read more »

When does receipt of a pre-suit claim notice letter trigger an insurance carrier’s obligation to provide a defense and/or indemnity? In Sanders v. Phoenix Insurance Co., the First Circuit provided some guidance to this question, holding that a pre-suit notice …

First Circuit Provides Guidance as to When a Notice of Claim Triggers Policy Obligations Read more »