You searched for pennsylvania - Page 3 of 9 - The Insurance & Reinsurance Report

December 14, 2018 General

The Insurance & Reinsurance Report: Year in Review — Why We Think It’s the Best Legal News Blog of 2018

Goldberg Segalla’s Insurance and Reinsurance Report is in the running for The Expert Institute’s Best Legal News Blog of 2018. Fans and readers of the Report and others who stay abreast of developments in the legal blogosphere are invited to vote for the best legal news blog through the following link:

https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/legal-blog/the-insurance-reinsurance-report/

Honored to be in the running and by the support we’ve seen thus far, we took this opportunity to reflect on some of the Insurance and Reinsurance Report’s most notable accomplishments of 2018.…

October 10, 2018 Other Insurance

Timing a Petition to Remove

It’s no secret the federal court is the preferred forum for litigating insurance coverage issues. When considering whether to remove, one factor to always consider is whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action will be brought. Should that be the case, the Forum Defendant Rule dictates that the matter is no longer removable once the forum defendant has been properly joined and served. How does this impact a yet-to-be served forum defendant who is keen on removing? A Pennsylvania …

May 23, 2018 Industry News

The ALI Votes to Approve the “Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance”

After nearly a decade of debate and controversy, the American Law Institute (ALI) voted to approve the much anticipated Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (RLLI) at its annual meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2018. The project that ultimately resulted in the RLLI was launched in 2010, under the direction of Reporter Tom Baker of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and Associate Reporter Kyle D. Logue of Michigan Law School, and produced nearly 30 drafts through the lifecycle of the project, before …

January 13, 2017 Uncategorized

Anticipated Decision in Heinz Rescission Litigation Upholds Ruling Voiding $25 Million Insurance Policy Due to Misrepresentations in the Application

In a much anticipated decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rescission of H.J. Heinz Company’s $25 million production contamination insurance policy because Heinz made material misrepresentations concerning previous product contamination claims when it applied for the policy. H.J. Heinz Company v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 16-1447 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2017).

The fact that Heinz’s application misrepresented its history of prior contaminations losses was clear. The insurer’s application asked Heinz to disclose past complaints, recommendations, fines or penalties by …

October 21, 2016 Duty to Defend / Personal and Advertising Injury

Don’t Skip Steps When Analyzing the Foundation for a Covered Claim: No Publication and No Use of Advertising Ideas Means No Duty to Defend Beauty School Dispute

Desabato v. Assurance Co. of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-484, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135389 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2016) represents a continuation of Pennsylvania law in the context of an insurer’s duty to defend personal and advertising injury claims. As articulated in Desabato, Pennsylvania adheres to a strict four-corners analysis of an insurer’s duty to defend. Since the underlying complaint failed to allege the elements of defamation or misappropriation of advertising ideas, the court held Assurance Company of America, Northern Insurance Company …

March 17, 2016 Emerging Issues

Massachusetts’ Highest Court Rejects Targeted Tenders

Only three states have adopted the “targeted tender” rule. Massachusetts recently had the chance to join those ranks, but it firmly declined. The concept of “targeted tender” or “selective tender” allows a policyholder to single out one insurer among co-insurers and trigger only that insurer’s policy, leaving the insurer without entitlement to contribution from co-insurers.

In Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Great Northern Insurance Company, an employee reported his injury to the insured employer, which then notified only one of two …

January 25, 2016 Policy Conditions, Considerations, Construction, and Formation

Failure to Answer Question on Application for Insurance Truthfully Held to be Grounds for Rescission

Policyholders have an affirmative duty to read the questions asked on an insurance application carefully and will be bound by the answers provided. So stated the United States District Court of the District of Connecticut when it held that a policyholder’s answer of “no” to a question asking whether any of its officers was the subject of a governmental investigation was knowingly false and material to the insurer’s decisions to issue the liability insurance policy. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Expedient Title, Inc., …

November 17, 2015 Personal and Advertising Injury

Holy Stromboli! Grocer Loses Coverage and Bad Faith Battle Against Excess Carrier

In Charter Oak Insurance Company v. Maglio Fresh Foods, No. 14-4094, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19268 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2015), the Third Circuit held that because the underlying lawsuit did not present a covered “advertising injury” claim, and there was no exhaustion of the primary policy, the insured’s excess carrier could not have acted in bad faith.

As background, the underlying plaintiff, Leonetti’s, a supplier and competitor of Maglio Fresh Foods, brought a lawsuit against Maglio. First, the “Maglio brand claim” alleged that …

October 19, 2015 Personal and Advertising Injury

No Coverage for Consumer Privacy Claims Say Third Circuit and Seventh Circuit

In two recent cases, the Third Circuit and Seventh Circuit each found an absence of coverage under general liability policies resulting from consumer privacy claims, one for alleged violations of a state ZIP code statute and another for alleged violations of a state unauthorized recording statute. Since both cases involved coverage for class action lawsuits seeking statutory damages, these are big wins for insurers.

First, the Third Circuit in OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No 14-2976, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16399 …

July 1, 2015 Uncategorized

Bad Faith Decision Vacated as Insurer Not Responsible for Punitive Damages Where Insurance for Punitive Damages is Prohibited

In Jared Wolfe v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the insurer brought an appeal to the Third Circuit seeking to vacate a jury award against it for bad faith and breach of contract asserted by a plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the policyholder of the insurer. The Third Circuit agreed with the insurer and vacated the award, finding that the lower court made a mistake in allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of a punitive damages award …