Coverage

No Coverage for Negligent Supervision Claim (PA)

In Michele Kahana v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania analyzed whether an auto insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify a claim of negligence per se arising out of an auto accident. The claim was asserted against Kahana, the mother of the minor decedent who was struck while walking alone after midnight while dressed in...Read More

Bi-Coastal Blow to Covid Related Restaurant Business Interruption Claims

During the first week of October two separate District Courts, for the Northern District of Georgia and the Central District of California, issued Orders granting the respective motions to dismiss filed by insurer defendants arguing that their policies provide no coverage for a restaurant insureds’ claim for business income coverage alleging losses stemming from Covid-19 closures. In...Read More

Virus Exclusion At Play for Pennsylvania Law Firm (PA)

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dealt with an attorney filing a lawsuit after her law firm was forcibly shut down as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.  In Rhonda Hill Wilson, et al. v. Hartford Casualty Co., et al. the District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim after determining that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the virus...Read More

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Acknowledges Kvaerner is Still Good Law (PA)

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a declaratory judgment action, In re Shelter Structures, Inc., recently reaffirmed that Pennsylvania law typically does not provide coverage under a CGL policy for faulty workmanship. The underlying facts alleged that Shelter violated various building codes in the design and construction of an aircraft hangar. The aircraft hangar collapsed, destroying an...Read More

New York Court Analyzes Additional Insured Coverage (NY)

In a recent case decided by the New York Supreme Court, an insurer sought summary judgment on its action seeking defense and indemnity from another insurer. The Court rejected the insurer’s summary judgment motion, holding coverage for additional insureds is limited to situations where the insured is the proximate cause of the injury. The Court found “liability exists precisely where there is...Read More

Extrinsic Evidence Bounces Back: Exception to Four Corners Rule Found in Trampoline Case (NY)

In Philadelphia Indem. v. Streb, the Southern District of New York explored an emerging exception to New York’s four corners rule, which restricts the use of extrinsic evidence outside of the complaint when determining coverage. The court ruled that although the facts triggering a policy exclusion for trampoline use were not included in the complaint, the exclusion should still apply since the...Read More

WCM Successfully Opposes Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and Remand (PA)

In Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company v. Pediatric Associates of Westmoreland Ltd, WCM Partners Robert Cosgrove and Colleen Hayes successfully defeated defendant Pediatric Assoc. of Westmoreland, Ltd.’s (“PAW”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Remand to State Court.  By way of brief background, plaintiff Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. filed a declaratory judgment action...Read More

Despite Error, Insurer Escapes Liability for UM/UIM Coverage

In Beach v. The Navigators Ins. Co., No. 1550 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 11, 2020), the plaintiffs sought UIM coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued to their employer. The dispute centered on the applicable limits of the UIM policy. The question as to the applicable UIM limit arose out of an error the insurer made when renewing the policy at issue. Beaches’ employer sought to...Read More

Exclusion for Prior Dishonest Acts Can’t Scrap Coverage for Stolen Metal (PA)

In National Retail Systems Inc v. Markel Insurance Company, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania examined ambiguous language in an insurance coverage dispute arising out of employee theft. The federal judge held that an exclusion barring coverage for “prior dishonest acts” did not apply to cases of collusion where only one of the conspirators had a known history of dishonesty....Read More

Third Circuit Affirms Doctor’s Sexual Misconduct Is Not Within the Scope of His Employment, and Thus Not Covered Under Professional Liability Policy

The Third Circuit affirmed a New Jersey District Court’s ruling that there is no coverage for a doctor’s claim for coverage in an underlying sexual misconduct and medical malpractice lawsuit, affirming the well-established principle that an employee’s conduct outside the scope of employment prevents them from being an insured under the employer’s policy. Dr. Jonathan Fellus was employed as a...Read More