Page 4 - Liability Co News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

ADVERTISEMENT Calif. Stores Not Owed Defense Of Fraud Suit, 9th Circ. Says Law360 (April 15, 2021, 6:43 PM EDT) -- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Thursday that a California law barring insurance for unfair competition actions relieved a Starr Insurance Cos. unit from having to defend the operator of the Curacao retail chain against the state's claims that it engaged in predatory business tactics, spurning the retailer's argument that the law is unconstitutional. A unanimous three-judge panel of the appellate court left intact a California federal court's ruling that Starr Indemnity and Liability...

In Short The Situation: Corporate policyholders, and their individual officers and directors, often incur significant fees and costs when forced to respond to government subpoenas that may require extensive document productions and testimony.When responding to subpoenas, policyholders too often overlook whether their directors' and officers' ("D&O") coverage may cover costs associated with those responses. The Result: Many courts have held that a subpoena constitutes a "claim" as defined in most traditional D&O insurance policies, and similarly have held that the subpoena need not allege an e...

ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Brooklyn Building Owner Seeks Construction Injury Coverage Law360 (January 7, 2021, 10:48 PM EST) -- The owner of a luxury Brooklyn apartment building sued Starr Indemnity and Liability Co. in New York state court, alleging Thursday that the insurer breached an insurance contract by not defending it in a construction injury suit under a $1.75 million policy. Kent Avenue Property 3 LLC is asking the court to hold that Starr is obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying action alleging liability over a workplace accident that happened during the constructi...

Federal Court in Georgia Applies Hoover Rule Finding that Insurers Who Sent Denial Letters Waived Right to Assert Other Coverage Defenses Later. Eight years ago in Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co., 730 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. 2012), Georgia’s Supreme Court cautioned insurers against the common practice of denying coverage on one ground at the outset of a claim’s investigation, and later amending or supplementing that coverage denial to assert new coverage defenses if the initial reasons for denying coverage fail. Under Hoover, when an insurer responds to a Georgia policyholder’s claim notificat...