The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has ruled that an insurer could rescind a policy issued after a homeowners association falsely claimed in its application that it had not had any claims
Wiley Rein LLP
Wiley Rein is a dominant presence in Washington, DC, with more than 240 attorneys and public policy advisors. Our firm has earned international prominence by representing clients in complex, high-stakes regulatory, litigation, and transactional matters. Many of the firm’s attorneys have held high-level positions in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and in federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Election Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Many of our attorneys also have active high-level security clearances that allow them to quickly “read in” to matters when there is a need to access classified materials. The Legal Times has noted that the firm “represents as perfect a merging of public policy and corporate America as exists in Washington.”
Latest from Wiley Rein LLP - Page 4
Insurer’s Refusal to Participate in Settlement Negotiations Waives Consent-to-Settle Requirement
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, applying Alabama law, has held that an insurer could not invoke a policy’s consent-to-settle requirement to avoid liability because the insurer refused to participate in settlement negotiations despite having…
No Coverage for Lawsuit Alleging Same Circumstances Asserted in Email Received Prior to Policy Period
The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying Georgia law, has held that a claims-made policy did not provide coverage for an underlying lawsuit where the allegations in that lawsuit were first made in an email…
Insured-versus-Insured Exclusion Precludes Coverage For Entire Suit Brought by Insureds and Non-Insureds
A Kentucky federal court has held that an Insured v. Insured (IvI) exclusion that included an assistance exception precluded coverage for an entire lawsuit brought by both insureds and non-insureds and that no allocation was required. Tarter v. Navigators Ins.…
Private Investment Funds: Major Developments from 2020
There were several important developments impacting private investment funds in 2020. The SEC continued to prioritize this area of the capital markets, and it issued important rules and guidance impacting private funds and investment advisers. There also were two important…
New York Insurance Law Does Not Preclude Enforcement of Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy’s Notice Requirements
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division has held that, under New York Insurance Law § 3420(a)(5), an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a personal injury action where the insured failed to provide notice of the claim…
Prior Knowledge and Prior Notice Exclusions Barred Coverage For Legal Malpractice Claim
The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota has held that an insurer had no duty to defend a claim under a lawyers professional liability policy where the insured had prior knowledge that a claim might be…
No Coverage for Lawsuit That Related Back to Claim Made During Prior Policy Period
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Arkansas law, has affirmed a ruling in favor of an insurer holding that there was no coverage for a claim made during one policy period but not reported until…
Ninth Circuit Holds that Excess Carrier May Challenge Allocation of Primary Carrier’s Settlement that Resolves Both the Underlying Claim and a Coverage Dispute
Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit held that an excess insurer may challenge the allocation of an underlying settlement that resolves both an underlying claim against an insured and the insured’s coverage dispute with the primary insurer. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
No Coverage for Employment Lawsuit Where Insured Failed to Notice Earlier EEOC Charges
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, applying Washington law, has held that an insured’s late notice of a claim bars coverage, rejecting arguments that (i) coverage applied because the prior and pending litigation provision did…