It’s not “12 Corners” — Court Holds Answer does not Trigger Duty to Defend

It is a well-known insurance principle that the duty to defend is determined using the “Eight-Corners” method — comparing the four corners of the complaint to the four corners of the insurance policy. A federal court in Illinois recently maintained this principle and declined to extend coverage to an insured based allegations in the insured’s answer, limiting the analysis of the duty to defend only to the facts alleged in the complaint, and not the answer, unless “unusual circumstances” exist.
Continue reading...

A Line Drawn in the Soil: Jeep is Not a “Farm Implement” Under Farm Policy

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois applied the “eight-corners” rule to determine that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify insured in Elmore v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company et al. (S.D.Ill. July 27, 2015). The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance, alleging that Grinnell had a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff under the terms of his Farm-Guard policy for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident on a
Continue reading...

Texas Federal Court Bars Coverage Attorney’s Expert Testimony

In Corinth Investor Holdings, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172647 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2014), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the “expert” report of Michael W. Huddleston, an expert witness designated by the defendant insurer. Homeland Insurance Company (“HIC”) had designated Huddleston, an attorney with experience in insurance law, as an expert witness. Notably, HIC’s main coverage defenses were based on the policy’s “claims
Continue reading...