By Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, who can be reached at [email protected], is the Editor-in-Chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report and the Director of FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center.
A significant feature of the Case Law Developments that are published every day in FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center, and that are included in this issue of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, is that, wherever possible, we reproduce the actual policy language at issue in the cases.
Consider, for example, our analysis of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. In that case, for the first time, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, addressed the meaning of “occurrence” in the context of claims based on numerous incidents of alleged sexual abuse of a minor by a priest that spanned several years and several policy periods. In a plurality decision, the court ruled that there were multiple occurrences, adding that there should be a pro rata allocation across all implicated policies.
Under the title, “Multiple Occurrences where Priest Allegedly Abused a Minor over Several Years and Policy Periods, New York's Top Court Rules,” we discuss the decision – and we include the policies' definitions of “occurrence” and “bodily injury” as well as other provisions of the policies that limited liability to bodily injury that occurred during the policy period and that related to self-insured retention.
Look at our analysis of Hall v. Allstate Ins. Co., under the title, “Insured Was Obligated to Submit to Examination under Oath after Submitting a Claim following a Fire at His Home, Court Rules.” Here, a federal district court in Louisiana dismissed a lawsuit filed by an insured whose home had been damaged by a fire against his homeowner's insurer, ruling that he was obligated to submit to an examination under oath to allow the insurer to complete its investigation of his claim.
In our report on this decision, we quoted – in detail – the policy provisions that provided what the insured had to do after a loss, which formed the basis for the court's ruling.
And look at our discussion entitled, “Pollution and Health Hazard Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Interior Damage Allegedly Caused by Chinese Drywall, Court Rules,” which examined American Home Assurance Co. v. Arrow Terminals, Inc. In that case, a federal district court in Florida decided that two insurance policies' pollution and health hazard exclusions did not bar coverage for claims alleging that imported Chinese drywall sold by the insured had caused damage to the interior of various residences. We included extensive portions of the insurance policies, including from the Broad Form Liability Endorsement and from the Pollution Limitation Endorsement.
Policy language is something you will regularly find in our Case Law Developments.
And More…
You will see a great deal in this issue of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, including two feature articles: “Buying Cyber Insurance Protection in a Fast-Evolving Market,” by Joshua Gold and Cort T. Malone, and “Federal Court Interprets D&O Policy to Permit Coverage for False Claims Act and Qui Tam Actions,” by Matthew L. Jacobs and Jan A. Larson. Of course, you also will find a great deal of information on FC&S Legal itself, at www.fcandslegal.com.
Enjoy the issue!
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Editor-in-Chief
July 2013