It’s been a fascinating week in insurance and ERISA news, making it a good week to be the author of an ongoing weekly series on hot topics, articles, posts and the like in these areas of law. Interestingly (to me, anyway), the first three stories directly concern cases and issues I have litigated many times
So much to choose from to write about this week, but I am, by my own rules for this series of posts, limited to five topics. I noted last week that there was a risk I would beat holiday jokes into the ground this month, and here I go again, starting with an article about
Well, this is something. I think the partner who mentored me as a junior associate and I started reserving insurers’ rights to recover defense costs back from insureds if the claim at issue turned out to be uncovered thirty years ago – and someone has finally convinced a Massachusetts court to order an insured to
So this is interesting, from a couple of perspectives. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a fairly comprehensive opinion addressing a number of issues in insurance coverage law in Massachusetts. The facts are a little salacious, and read more like a John Grisham plot than real life, but unfortunately, odd facts often underlie
Well, how can I not comment on this, given the focus of both this blog and my practice? The Second Circuit was just presented with the question of whether an insurer has to provide a defense to a company and its officer, under the employee benefits liability portion of a policy, for an ERISA claim
You know, this is actually of more personal interest to me than it is probably of importance to insureds, insurers and their lawyers with regard to determining whether a duty to defend exists in a given case. That is because the rule reflected in the case I am about to tell you about is sensible
Well, here’s a story on an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision on the impact on the duty to defend of related claims provisions in claims made insurance policies. Although policies vary in the language and structure they use to accomplish it, these provisions essentially declare a claim made during a policy period to be linked to
Wow. This is a fascinating insurance coverage story – I know, people who don’t practice in that area will email me in droves to tell me there is no such thing, but still – that illustrates some important points. It is the story of the corporate officer of a juvenile facility that was involved, apparently
I thought I would pass on two interesting insurance coverage stories, with some thoughts on each. The first is this one here, about the New Jersey Supreme Court finding that an insurer that loses an insurance coverage action can be ordered to pay attorney’s fees incurred by the insured in a separate but related
We have talked before on this blog about the tripartite relationship among insurers, the defense counsel they appoint, and the insured; this is a topic of wide interest to all sides in the insurer/insured relationship, and, in fact, my handy dandy two minute guide to the relationship’s issues is among my most read pages. However