Change in Court Rules Could Increase Legal Costs of Connecticut-Licensed Insurers Appearing Before Commissioner

The State of Connecticut recently revised Section 2-16 of the Connecticut Superior Court Rules to require that an attorney not admitted in the State of Connecticut be admitted pro hac vice prior to appearing on behalf of a client before the Connecticut Insurance Department or any other state or municipal government agency.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

New York Court Finds That Insured V. Insured Exclusion is Ambiguous

By | Executive Summary Blog | July 26, 2016

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, applying New York law, has held that a duty to defend was not precluded by the terms of an Insured v. Insured exclusion because the exclusion did not state whether an employee, like the plaintiff in the underlying action, constituted an “insured” for purposes of applying the exclusion.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

The Irony of Not Fixing What Isn’t Broken: Wisconsin Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Extrinsic Evidence of Subcontractors’ Involvement in Replacement of Damaged Well Pump

Bootstrapping upon its decision in Marks v. Houston Casualty Co., 2016 WI 53, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Insurance Co., 2016 WI 54, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Insurer Accused of Having Ace Up Its Sleeve: Insurer Estopped from Relying On Sublimit Due to Defense Counsel’s Failure to Supplement Discovery Responses in Tort Lawsuit

In Harwell v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. of Ohio, 2016 IL App (1st) 152036, the Illinois Appellate Court refused to allow Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company to assert a policy sublimit because defense counsel retained by Fireman’s Fund to represent its insured in the underlying tort lawsuit failed to inform the tort claimant that the sublimit, and not the full limit, applied.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus