Articles
2) THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES
THAT AN INSURER MAY SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE EXPENSES IT CAN PROVE SOLELY
RELATES TO NONCOVERED CLAIMS.
3) LIMITATION PROVISION IN AUTO POLICY
HELD UNENFORCEABLE AS IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CONSPICUOUS
5) THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT DETERMINES THAT SITE INVESTIGATION COSTS MUST BE PAID BY
AN INSURER UNDER ITS DUTY TO DEFEND.
6) “HIDDEN DECAY” IN
FIRST PARTY POLICY HELD NOT TO BE LIMITED TO ORGANIC DECOMPOSITION
9) COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT AN INSURER
MUST ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A POLICYHOLDER WHICH MAY RAISE
CLAIMS AT TRIAL NOT EXPRESSLY ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT.
10) THE NINTH CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS THAT
AN INSURER CANNOT ESCAPE ITS DUTY TO DEFEND BY SHOWING THAT THE UNDERLYING
ALLEGATIONS HAVE NO BASIS OF FACT.
11)
INNOCENT CO-INSURED CAN RECOVER ON FIRE INSURANCE POLICY DESPITE OTHER
INSURED'S FALSE STATEMENT REGARDING THE LOSS
12)
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT LOSSES PLEADED
AS CONTRACT DAMAGES MAY
BE COVERED UNDER LIABILITY POLICIES
13) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES ARE
RECOVERABLE IN AN INSURANCE BAD FAITH ACTION EVEN IF THE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
IS NOT SEVERE AND SUBSTANTIAL
14) NEW FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE CHANGES DEADLINES AND TIME FRAMES IMPACTING NUMEROUS MATTERS, INLUDING EFFECTIVE DATE OF RELIEF FROM STAY ORDERS. RFS ORDER IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL 14 DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS ENTERED, UNLESS SPECIFICALY WAIVED BY THE COURT. OLD TEN DAY RULE NO LONGER APPLIES