Insurance Update

Readers of our monthly insurance newsletter may be familiar with the Sanders case. That’s the case that addresses the proper trigger for a malicious prosecution action. Since a wrongful conviction can lead to steep damages, which policy is on the hook for those damages can be an important issue for insurers. Earlier in the year, the Illinois Court of Appeals broke ranks and found that the policy in effect at the time of exoneration pays, not the policy in effect when the wrongful prosecution happened. We questioned whether this was the start of a new trend or simply an outlier. The Illinois Supreme Court has now weighed in and its decision is the lead case in our December Insurance Update.

Here’s what else you’ll find in this month’s update.

Basement cracking has been update a big issue in Connecticut. The Connecticut Supreme Court has just handed down a pair of decisions that help guide the coverage issues raised by these claims.

Auto insurers paying out first-party benefits will typically require the insured to submit to an independent medical examination. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers what limitations should be placed on an insurer’s ability to request such exams and whether unilateral requests conflict with the state’s motor vehicle law.

When does the duty to defend end? The Fifth Circuit addresses this question in the context of an underlying settlement by an additional insured carrier.

Can an exception to an exclusion affirmatively create coverage? No. A federal district court in Massachusetts properly applies this principle to a pollution claim.

A contractor intentionally removes dirt from private property purportedly believing it had authority to do so. Is there an “occurrence”? An Iowa appellate court decides.

We know it’s a busy time of the year, but we gathered up a few cases we thought you might find interesting before you head off for the holidays. We hope you enjoy the update and the holidays even more.

Season’s greetings.

Rob Tugander and Greg Mann