HNRK Coverage Corner

Last month an Oregon federal court held that the phrase “and/or” in a communicable disease exclusion was ambiguous and denied an insurer’s bid for summary judgment. For coverage counsel, the opinion in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Bruce Packing Co., Inc. provides an interesting analysis of whether a listeria outbreak is both “infectious” and “contagious”—and for lawyers in nearly every practice area, it’s a reminder that precision in contract language is important. 

Background

Bruce Packing Co. operated meat processing facilities. In 2024, the U.S ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we take a quick look at a recent decision from the Southern District New York in which the Court, following a bench trial, ruled in favor of a policyholder and used the mutual mistake doctrine to reform the policy to provide coverage.

Background

The facts are relatively straightforward.  The policyholder, Systems 2000 Plumbing Service (“Systems 2000”) sought coverage from its primary (Travelers) and excess (GuideOne National) insurers in connection with claims against Systems 2000 arising from a fire at the Manhattan apartment building where ...

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 ...

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 ...

In this edition of Hoguet Newman’s Coverage Corner Blog, we look at a recent case from New York’s Appellate Division that considered a situation where an insured settled litigation with plaintiffs by assigning them its right to sue its insurers—and, specifically, whether the insured was “released” by the settlement such that any indemnification obligation was extinguished.   The case, Geiger v Hudson Excess Insurance Co., also considered whether an establishment serving food and drinks misrepresented the true nature of its business when it applied for insurance. 

By ...