HNRK Coverage Corner

This week at the Coverage Corner, we take a look across the river at a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that held a dishonest employee’s multi-year scheme to steal money from his employer was one occurrence subject to the per-occurrence limit for a single policy year.  Whether a loss is the result of a single occurrence or multiple occurrences can be a critical question in coverage litigation.  We have previously written about the issue in the context of wildfire liability coverage and, like today’s issue, employee theft.

In today’s case ...

Last month, in CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. Ascot Underwriting Ltd., Case No. 24-0227-cv, the Second Circuit affirmed a victory for CITGO Petroleum Corporation (“CITGO”) when it held that oil seized in Venezuela was covered by a marine cargo reinsurance policy (the “Policy”) that provided coverage for losses caused by an “insurrection.”  On appeal, the Reinsurers argued Venezuela’s instability did not qualify as an insurrection, and they also urged a proximate-cause standard (rather than but-for) for the loss.

Background

In October 2012, Hugo Chávez won reelection ...

Today at the Coverage Corner, we examine a Fifth Circuit decision that ponders a fundamental question: What is a “suit”? A complaint filed in court or arbitration demand seeking money damages should qualify. But what about a pre-lawsuit ADR procedure? Like all questions of policy interpretation, the answer lies in the policy language, construed in accordance with the established rules of policy interpretation (including, for example, the canon that ambiguities are construed “in favor of the insured”).

At issue in BPX Prod. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we return with an update on a Delaware case about which we’ve written previously.  In Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., Case No. N23C-07-102, the Delaware Superior Court held that because the primary policy had a “No Action” clause, the insureds’ suit against their D&O insurers for advancement of defense costs was premature as long as the underlying litigation was ongoing.  We wrote about that decision here.

In July, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of what it said were arguments from the parties ...

A recent opinion out of the District of Oregon analyzed a “care, custody, or control” exclusion, among others, in assessing whether an insurer must defend a property manager in a suit arising from a fire at a vacation home maintained by the policyholder.  In finding for the insured, the Court’s decision highlights a broad duty to defend where the allegations in the underlying complaint could establish any potential for an injury covered by the policy.

In Colony Insurance Co. v. Vacasa LLC, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman held that Colony Insurance Company (“Colony” ...