BlogLine
4/22/22
Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Liability
Advisors and advocates, we’ve got you covered
Our insurance coverage team members are advisors and advocates for over two dozen carriers throughout the country including major national carriers such as Allianz, Argo, Fidelity National, Hartford, Travelers, Nationwide, Colony and the Berkley Companies.
Reach & Depth
Our insurance coverage team members are advisors and advocates for over two dozen carriers throughout the country including major national carriers such as Allianz, Argo, Fidelity National, Hartford, Travelers, Nationwide, Colony and the Berkley Companies. We have earned the trust of our clients through our consistent efforts to develop well-reasoned outcomes for insurance carriers in state and federal courts. Our team has handled insurance coverage and bad faith litigation ranging from relatively minor declaratory judgment actions, to major inter-company disputes, to the defense of multi-million dollar bad faith claims. Each member of our team has actual litigation experience outside of the coverage world, so we know what it is like to face high-dollar claims in the defense of product liability, professional liability and personal injury claims. This practical, real-world experience helps us temper our advice with a dose of reality, which gives us an added edge in resolving claims that involve disputed liability as well as coverage questions.
Insurance law operates at the crossroads of risk transfer concepts and the reality of litigation. Insurance professionals need reliable and trusted advocates that have both the intellectual rigor to understand the insurance issues presented by their cases and the experience to guide them through litigation that may be necessary to protect their rights. We welcome the opportunity to serve as your guide.
Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., addressing the “First Filed Rule” to competing declaratory judgment actions in a complex insurance coverage matter
Cotton States Insurance Company v. Brightman, in which the Supreme Court of Georgia set forth the parameters of a “failure to settle” claim including the requirement that there be a demand within policy limits
Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Company, in which the Supreme Court of Georgia considered a bad-faith failure to settle claim involving preservation of coverage defenses
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Great American Assurance Company, which addressed coverage for indemnity agreements under the “insured contract” exception to the contractual liability exclusion in CGL policies
Maxum Indemnity Company v. Jimenez, which involved whether a contractual liability for a subcontractor’s pipe instillation was a covered “occurrence” under a CGL policy
North American Specialty Insurance Company. v. Pen Pals Productions, LLC, which applied the “mobile equipment” exclusions in a CGL policy issued to a movie production company
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Dillard House, Inc., which resolved whether an exposure to Legionnaire’s disease was a covered occurrence under a CGL policy
Our attorneys have decades of experience in insurance law and are leaders in the field. They are active members in the Insurance Law Committee of DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar as well as PLUS, and they regularly publish articles and speak on insurance topics to stay abreast of the latest developments in coverage law and insurance products. One of our attorneys even holds a CPCU designation. Some of our recent articles have addressed whether (and when) insurers should split files between coverage and defense; the substantive and procedural requirements for preserving coverage defenses when defending under reservation of rights; and the evolving standards of the bad faith failure to settle claim.
Successes
Phil Savrin and Shawn Bingham successfully represented Allied Insurance Company of America (a Nationwide entity) in resisting a claim by a restaurant (Henry’s Louisiana Grill) seeking coverage for business income lost after it suspended its operations after the COVID-19 outbreak. The central question, which had not been decided previously under Georgia law, was whether the closure of the restaurant following an executive order by the Georgia governor resulted in a “direct physical loss” of the property. The appeals court agreed that the term “direct physical loss” under Georgia law requires a physical to the property that is “tangible or concrete.” Here, at most, the governor’s order caused “intangible” harm as “it did not destroy, ruin, or even damage any part of the restaurant.” The appeals court noted that its reasoning is in line with “every federal and state appellate court” that applied the same policy language in the COVID-19 context.
Related News & Blogs
BlogLine
Chubb unit beats virus coverage suit brought by NJ apparel company
3/25/22
BlogLine
The 11th Circuit deals blow to Employer’s Liability exclusion finding ambiguities under Alabama law
3/15/22
BlogLine
3/3/22
BlogLine
When Fido becomes family: insurance industry is impacted by new trends in American pet ownership
2/9/22
BlogLine
2/3/22
BlogLine
The Travis Scott concert tragedy and related insurance issues
12/27/21
BlogLine
12/23/21
BlogLine
It just became more difficult for plaintiffs to scream ‘Counter-Offer’
12/13/21
BlogLine
11/19/21
BlogLine
11/3/21
BlogLine
9/8/21