Reinsurance Law Blog

Reinsurance Law Blog

Tag Archives: bodily injury

Homeowners policy did not cover privacy, negligence claims where there was no physical injury to person or property — 10th Circuit, Oklahoma law

Posted in Contractual Liability, Duty to Defend
In State Farm Fire v. Dawson, Dawson was sued for negligence and privacy violations after receiving inappropriate photos of an under aged student. Dawson wanted State Farm to pay his defense and any judgment.  But State Farm claimed there was no physical injury to tangible property and no bodily injury such that the policy did… Continue Reading

No coverage for contaminated water claim at mobile home park, 8th Circuit, Missouri

Posted in Duty to Defend
In Williams v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., the issue was insurance coverage for claims for contaminated drinking water at a mobile home park. There was no coverage for the claims because the insurance policies’ pollution exclusions excluded coverage for “‘[b]odily injury’ or ‘property damage’ arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage,… Continue Reading

Injury is either within the products completed work hazard or it isn’t — it cannot be both in order to increase limits. Alabama law

Posted in Contractual Liability
In Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company v. Advanced Specialty Pharmacy, Advanced provided a tainted IV product which caused patient infections.  Pharmacists was Advanced’s insurer, and put $4 million into an interpleader fund to be divided among the claimants.  The claimants and Advanced claimed Pharmacists’ limits were $7 million and the trial court agreed on summary judgment. … Continue Reading

Wrongful Repo No Accident

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith
Policy excluded coverage for intentional acts, so petition pleading intentional conduct gave rise to no duty to defend. An intentional action, even if poorly researched, with its ordinary results describe an intentional tort, not negligence. "[T]heories based upon alleged 'negligent' and 'intentional' conduct are contradictory and mutually exclusive [.]" So insured had no duty to defend charge of conversion even when characterized as negligent.… Continue Reading
Lexblog