The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has concluded that a question of fact exists regarding when a “claim” was “first made” where the recipient of a “claim” sent via email allegedly did not
A Vermont federal court has held that a suit seeking “benefits [the insured] promised but failed to provide” sought amounts that fell within an exception for “restitution” from the definition of “damages” covered under an E&O policy. James River Ins.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, applying Indiana law, has held that two lawsuits filed against the NCAA claiming that it and its member schools engaged in anticompetitive conduct detrimental to student-athletes arose from Related Wrongful Acts. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, has held that a written demand for monetary relief, made as part of an ongoing civil proceeding, cannot constitute a second Claim distinct from the Claim already initiated
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that an ERISA exclusion in two E&O policies barred coverage for a lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Labor alleging ERISA violations
Applying Oklahoma law, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has held that no coverage is available for a lawsuit involving an equity holder in an investment agreement because the action did not involve a “Wrongful
Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that no coverage is available under a professional liability policy for a lawsuit alleging human trafficking, wage and hour, and consumer protection violations because
The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that correspondence to an insured attorney from a former client’s new counsel potentially alluding to a malpractice suit did not constitute a claim and that questions of fact remained as to whether the
Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an insurer wrongfully withdrew its defense after paying a covered verdict because the duty to defend extended until the court deemed the verdict
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, applying Kentucky law, has held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured given the applicability of the policy’s “contractual liability” exclusion to the claims
