This is a fun but dry (don’t worry – you will get the joke in a second) decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on whether rainwater that accumulates on a roof constitutes “surface waters” for purposes of an insurance policy. Of more practical value to most lawyers and of more interest to me, however
I didn’t want the week to end without passing along this story from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on the First Circuit’s decision in Lawrence General Hospital v. Continental Casualty Company. In the decision, the First Circuit reaffirmed the principle that Covid shutdowns did not trigger business interruption coverage in insurance policies, as most courts have
I was pleased to read this article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, as well as the recent Supreme Judicial Court decision it references. For several years, I have been arguing that in insurance coverage disputes involving sophisticated insureds, Massachusetts courts are moving away from their historic reliance on pro-insured maxims in deciding coverage disputes in favor
I absolutely love this story on the Fifth Circuit asking the Texas Supreme Court to consider the scope of insurance coverage for claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill loss; the case itself is fascinating as well. The reason is that insurance coverage law is an odd little area, in that massive numbers
This is a very fun – if you can use that word for insurance disputes – discussion of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court determining what trigger applies under insurance policies issued to insureds sued for asbestos related injuries. Its partly fun because it replays a highly contentious and, for all involved, expensive chapter in American legal history
Well, given the title of this blog, I couldn’t exactly let this decision pass unnoticed. In this decision from the Court of Appeals of New York, Federal Insurance Company v. IBM, the Court denied insurance coverage for IBM under an excess fiduciary liability (apparently) policy, for a settlement by IBM of a claim that
I have been thinking a lot recently about the development and history of particular aspects of insurance policy language, and how they reflect the continuing efforts of drafters to take language that can often be imprecise and refine it to more accurately reinforce what the insurer actually intends to take on as a covered risk.
There are some who believe that insurance policies are by definition ambiguous – mostly lawyers who solely represent policyholders for a living – and others, on occasion including judges, who sometimes seem to believe that unless a policy specifically excludes something, than it is either ambiguous and provides coverage or simply provides coverage because the
There is an article in Business Insurance magazine this week, the June 25th issue, on the Supreme Court accepting review of the LaRue decision, in which I am quoted. The article is here – subscription required – and if you read it, you will note that it ends on my comment that I expect the
I wanted to pass on to you a case out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that was issued about the time I was trying a patent infringement case last month, and which I wasn’t able to comment on then as a result. With a little more time