NEWS

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit in InComm Holdings, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company affirmed a district court decision holding an insurer is not obligated to reimburse a prepaid debit card processer for a $10.7 million loss.

The Eastern District of Michigan recently entered summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a coverage dispute concerning a computer fraud provision in American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, 2017 WL 3263356.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently issued the most comprehensive opinion to date addressing whether an insurer’s duty to defend extends to counterclaims asserted by the insured. The court in Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. VisionAid,Inc., SJC-12142 (Mass. 2017), held that where an insurance policy provides that the insurer has the “duty to defend any claim” initiated against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend does not require it to prosecute affirmative counterclaims on behalf of its insured.

The Washington State Supreme Court recently published an opinion that may impact how courts will approach exclusions in certain liability policies. In Xia v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, 2017 WL 1532219 (Wash. Apr. 27, 2017), a homeowner became ill soon after moving into a new house. It later was determined an improperly installed exhaust vent for the hot water heater discharged carbon monoxide into the basement of the home.

In Federal Ins. Co. v. Singing River Health System, 850 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2017), the Fifth Circuit overturned a district court decision that briefly left insurers in doubt whether fees paid to independent counsel could erode the limits of a burning-limits liability policy.  In Moeller v. American Guar & Liab. Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 1062 (Miss. 1996), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a defense provided under a reservation of rights creates a conflict of interest requiring that the insured be provided an opportunity to select its own independent counsel

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurer on the issue of pre-tender defense costs in EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America, 845 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2017). Applying Florida law, the court denied the insured’s breach of contract suit for over $400,000 in fees incurred before the insured notified its insurer.

Last week, the District of Oregon became the latest court to rule on the pollution exclusion that appears in almost every general liability policy. The court in Colony Insurance Company v. Victory Construction LLC, 2017 WL 960024 (D. Or. Mar. 9, 2017), concluded Colony had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds for two bodily injury lawsuits arising from the release of carbon monoxide from a pool heater.

The Southern District of Texas has issued its latest ruling in U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Insurance Corp., 2017 WL 830398 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017), a complex and longstanding coverage litigation concerning the interpretation of the “your product” and “impaired property” exclusions. U.S. Metals sold Exxon 350 flanges used to remove sulphur from diesel fuel at Exxon refineries. The flanges did not meet industry standards, and several began leaking.

In Harleysville Group Ins. v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 2017 WL 105021 the South Carolina Supreme Court considered the impact that vague reservation of rights letters have on an insurer's right to pursue its coverage defenses. The claim arose out of property damage to condominiums originally caused by the insureds' faulty workmanship.

In Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Advanced Specialty Pharmacy LLC, No. 1140046, 2016 WL 6819657 (Ala. Nov. 18, 2016), the Alabama Supreme Court reduced an award against a pharmacy’s general liability and umbrella insurer by $3M after finding underlying claims only were subject to the policies’ general aggregate limit, and not also the products/completed work hazard aggregate limit.

Insurance-appointed counsel should be familiar with the “tripartite” relationship. Those insurance-appointed counsel who defend under a reservation of rights (“ROR”) especially should be aware of the potential conflicts that befall such representation. One commentator aptly described the ROR defense as “deeply and unavoidably vexing.”1 The Supreme Court of Mississippi has recognized the “tripartite” relationship creates problems that would “tax Socrates.”