liability insurance

Subscribe to liability insurance via RSS

Liability insurers often receive policy limit demands from third-party claimants that allege serious injuries without corroborating medical records or bills. Since the enactment of California Civil Procedure Code section 999 et seq. in 2023, these demands are typically made by “unrepresented” claimants who are actually receiving guidance from attorneys behind the scenes.Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Confirms That Liability Insurers Are Entitled to Corroborating Medical Documentation Before Settling a Third-Party Bodily Injury Claim

In 2015, Continental Casualty Company issued a commercial general liability policy to Zongwei Shen dba Nobles Massage Spa. The policy covered Shen (the spa owner) and Zhong Xin (the spa manager and Shen’s wife) for damages because of bodily injury that occurred during the policy period. The policy contained an abuse or molestation exclusion that excluded coverage for bodily injury “arising out of” (a) the “actual or threatened abuse or molestation by anyone of any person while in the care, custody or control of any insured,” or (b) the negligent employment, supervision, or retention “of a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and whose conduct would be excluded by (a).”Continue Reading The California Court of Appeal Interprets the Meaning of “Care, Custody, or Control” in the Context of an Abuse or Molestation Exclusion

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company (“Voyager) issued a commercial liability insurance policy to MRB Construction, Inc. (“MRB Construction”), a framing subcontractor. As is common with such policies, MRB Construction’s policy contained a “blanket” additional insured endorsement for its ongoing operations. Specifically, the policy not only covered MRB Construction as the named insured, but extended “additional insured” status to those persons or organizations “for whom you are performing operations.” Continue Reading Failure to Timely Produce in Discovery Underlying Written Contract with Insured Prevented General Contractor from Establishing Status as an Additional Insured

This article was originally published in Daily Journal on January 4, 2023.

On January 1, 2023, a new California law, Code of Civ. P. § 999, et seq., took effect. This law sets forth various requirements that a policy “time-limited demand” must meet to justify a “bad faith refusal to settle” claim in the event the liability insurer does not accept it. Continue Reading New California Law Impacts “Time-Limited Demands” in the Insurance Industry

Pulte Home Corporation v. American Safety Indemnity Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d — , 2017 WL 3725045 (Aug. 30, 2017); California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, Case No. D070478.

In two construction defect lawsuits, homeowners sued the general contractor and developer, Pulte Home Corporation, for alleged foundation, electrical and waterproofing defects.

Pulte required that its subcontractors purchase general liability insurance with completed operations coverage naming Pulte as an additional insured. American Safety Indemnity Company had issued such liability insurance policies to several subcontractors implicated in the defect claims. Those policies included “products – completed operations” coverage for property damage occurring away from the named insured’s premises, “arising out of ‘your work.’” “Your work” included “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf” and warranties as to fitness and quality.
Continue Reading Court Finds Ambiguity in Additional Insured Endorsement to Trigger Defense Duty Under Completed Operations Coverage