Illinois: Latest State to Declare Malicious Prosecution Claims Only Trigger Coverage in Effect During Arrest

In this era of sophisticated DNA testing, exonerations of incarcerated individuals have become increasingly commonplace. The ensuing malicious prosecution lawsuits have justifiably resulted in high verdicts and settlements. The key issue for many municipalities is whether coverage is triggered for these malicious prosecution claims, and under which policies of insurance. On November 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, 2019 IL 124565, definitively determined that claims of malicious prosecution trigger coverage only under
Continue reading...

Federal Judge Finds Mischievous Raccoons Incapable of Engaging in Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

A federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a breach of contract and bad faith suit against an insurer by finding that a group of mischievous raccoons was incapable of committing vandalism or malicious mischief.[1] At issue was substantial interior property damage to a Pittsburgh-area home owned by the plaintiff-insured caused by raccoons. The plaintiff submitted a claim under its named-peril policy for the damage. The insurer denied coverage because the named-peril policy only provided coverage for damage
Continue reading...

No Coverage for Construction Defect After Work Completed

On an underlying claim for negligent construction of a condominium project in south Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit overturned the Southern District of Mississippi’s decision to grant coverage to an additional insured.  The Fifth Circuit overturned on the grounds that the additional insured was temporally barred, by the policy’s limitation and exclusion, from doing so. When initially declining to provide coverage to the additional insured, the insurer cited to language in the policy that limited its coverage “to liability arising out
Continue reading...

Insurer Owes Coverage After Longshoreman Drops Lathe

Amera-Seiki Corp. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, July 23, 2013 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that The Cincinnati Insurance Company owed coverage to its insured for equipment that was destroyed at port terminal based on ambiguous policy language. The Cincinnati Insurance Company insured a machine tool supplier, Amera-Seiki Corp., under a commercial property policy. During the policy period, Amera-Seiki purchased a vertical lathe from Taiwan for delivery to a
Continue reading...