A landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court holds that an insurer may not refuse to honor an insured's assignment of policy coverage regarding injuries that predate assignment.

The policy interpretation from a federal district court in California applies to four underlying actions.

The policy interpretation from a federal district court in California applies to four underlying actions.

Coverage depends on whether the underlying claims allege slogan infringement, triggering Praetorian's duty to defend and indemnify the insured.

Coverage depends on whether the underlying claims allege slogan infringement, triggering Praetorian's duty to defend and indemnify the insured.

The final rule implements provisions of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 relating to the escrowing of flood insurance payments and the exemption of certain detached structures from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement.

The final rule implements provisions of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 relating to the escrowing of flood insurance payments and the exemption of certain detached structures from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement.

A federal district court in Utah has ruled that an insurance company had no duty to defend its insureds under a cyber liability policy when the allegations against the insureds alleged knowledge, willfulness, and malice instead of errors, omissions, or negligence.