Milad Emam

Firm/Organization: Wiley Rein LLP

Latest Articles

No Duty to Defend Antitrust Suit Alleging Malicious Disparagement

By Milad Emam on August 3, 2015

Applying Texas law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas has held that there is no duty to defend an insured under a CGL policy for allegations of malicious disparagement, where the policy precluded coverage for knowingly false disparagement and knowing attempts to violate others’ rights and inflict personal and advertising injury. Chartis Spec. Ins. Co. v. JSW Steel (USA), Inc., No. 4:14-cv-01527 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 8, 2015).…

Executive Summary Blog

Dishonesty Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claim Alleging Fraudulent Inducement to Extend Loan

By Milad Emam on July 20, 2015

Applying New York law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has held that a dishonesty exclusion bars coverage for a claim alleging that a law firm representing the sellers of an inn fraudulently induced the underlying claimants to extend a loan to the inn’s purchaser. Lewis & Stanzione v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2015 WL 3795780 (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2015).…

Executive Summary Blog

Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claims against Bank Accused of Facilitating Ponzi Scheme

By Milad Emam on June 8, 2015

Applying Florida law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has held that a professional services exclusion precludes coverage for claims made against a Ponzi schemer’s bank and four of its executives. Goldberg v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 1:13-cv-21653 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015).…

Executive Summary Blog

Insurer Not Estopped from Relying on Exclusion in Unilaterally Disclaiming Duty to Defend; Business Enterprise Exclusion Bars Coverage

By Milad Emam on May 21, 2015

Applying Wisconsin law, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin has held that an insurer is not estopped from relying on a policy exclusion to justify its refusal to defend in subsequent coverage litigation. Marks v. Bedford Underwriters, Ltd., No. 2013AP2756, 2015 WL 2114317 (Wis. Ct. App. May 7, 2015). The court held that prior appellate decisions precluding an insurer from relying on exclusions in litigating the duty to defend after the insurer had declined…

Executive Summary Blog

Prejudice Irrelevant to Late Notice Where Timely Notice Is Condition Precedent

By Milad Emam on April 21, 2015

Applying Minnesota law, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota has held that, where timely notice is a condition precedent for coverage under a claims-made-and-reported policy, an insurer need not demonstrate actual prejudice to disclaim coverage. Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC, 2015 WL 1514018 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2015).…

Executive Summary Blog

Insurer Need Not Demonstrate Prejudice to Disclaim Coverage for Late Notice under Excess Claims-Made Policy

By Milad Emam on April 21, 2015

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has held that, where an excess claims-made policy requires—as conditions precedent to coverage—notice of a claim within 90 days of the policy’s expiration and within 30 days of notice to a primary carrier, an insurer need not demonstrate prejudice to disclaim coverage. Ashland Hosp. Corp., d/b/a King’s Daughters Med. Ctr. v. RLI Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 13-143-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2015).…

Executive Summary Blog

Bad Faith Exclusion Bars Coverage for Bad Faith Failure to Settle Claim That Also Alleges Negligence

By Milad Emam on February 2, 2015

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina has held that, where all of a policyholder’s potential loss in the underlying action results from or is inextricably intertwined with excluded conduct—“alleged lack of good faith or unfair dealing”—there is no coverage for the claim. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of N.C., No. 5:14-cv-295-D (W.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2015). The court rejected the policyholder’s argument that allegations of…

Executive Summary Blog

No Coverage for SEC Investigation Where Initial Investigative Order First Issued Before the Policy Period

By Milad Emam on January 12, 2015

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held that, where subpoenas served during a policy period refer to an investigative order first issued before the policy period and investigate the same officers and company for the same pattern of alleged securities law violations, the subpoenas were part of a single “claim” made before the policy period. Biochemics, Inc. v. AXIS Reins. Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-10691-RWZ (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2015)…

Milad Emam

No Duty to Defend Antitrust Suit Alleging Malicious Disparagement

Dishonesty Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claim Alleging Fraudulent Inducement to Extend Loan

Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claims against Bank Accused of Facilitating Ponzi Scheme

Insurer Not Estopped from Relying on Exclusion in Unilaterally Disclaiming Duty to Defend; Business Enterprise Exclusion Bars Coverage

Prejudice Irrelevant to Late Notice Where Timely Notice Is Condition Precedent

Insurer Need Not Demonstrate Prejudice to Disclaim Coverage for Late Notice under Excess Claims-Made Policy

Bad Faith Exclusion Bars Coverage for Bad Faith Failure to Settle Claim That Also Alleges Negligence

No Coverage for SEC Investigation Where Initial Investigative Order First Issued Before the Policy Period

Company

Support

New to the Network