Insurance Update

A few years back, we discussed the Montana Supreme Court’s Parker decision, which interpreted an earth movement exclusion in a first-party claim under a homeowner’s policy.  There, a boulder dislodged from a hillside and damaged the insured’s house.  The issue was whether a tumbling boulder should be considered earth movement.  The court said yes.  Now, the Montana Supreme Court decides for the first time how the earth movement exclusion applies in a third-party claim under a CGL policy.  Does the exclusion’s failure to distinguish between natural and man-made causes render it ambiguous?

The New Jersey Supreme Court resolves an issue about the state’s direct action statute that caused some confusion in the courts below.  Is a judgment creditor bound by the insurance policy’s ADR clause?

And speaking of judgment creditors, the Eleventh Circuit issues a ruling in a bad faith case that may make insurers uneasy.

We round out the update with an Illinois appellate court’s consideration of the intentional acts exclusion in the context of a consumer fraud claim and the Tenth Circuit’s consideration of an insured’s mental state when applying an intentional loss exclusion under a homeowner’s policy.

We hope you find the update informative.

Rob Tugander and Greg Mann