Reinsurance Law Blog

Reinsurance Law Blog

Tag Archives: property damage

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

CGL Policy Excludes Damage to Insured’s Work Product; 8th Circuit, Iowa.

Posted in Contractual Liability, Duty to Defend
In Decker Plastics, Inc. v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., the insurer denied coverage after its insured, Decker, was sued for damages caused by Decker’s defective plastic bags. West Bend argued the defective plastic bags did not constitute an “occurrence” under the policy. Judgment for the insured was proper because “occurrence” includes damages to property other than… Continue Reading

Texas Supreme Court discusses extent of coverage for construction defects under CGL policies

Posted in Contractual Liability, New Case, New Law
In U.S. Metals v. Liberty Mutual, the insured provided flanges to a refinery.  These flanges were welded onto pipes.  When tested by the refinery, they were found to leak, so the refinery replaced them all and sought damages from the insured.  The insured settled with the refinery and sought coverage from its insurer, Liberty Mutual. … Continue Reading

Excluded Defective Construction Caused Covered Property Damage — CGL policy, Missouri law

Posted in New Case
In equitable garnishment action, judgment against insured is not subject to collateral attack. Elements of equitable garnishment include a judgment against insured for damages covered by policy in effect when damage occurred. An accident means an "injury caused by the negligence of the insured." Whether exclusion applies is insurer's burden to prove. In litigation pending for 18 months, denial of leave to amend its answer two months before trial was not an abuse of discretion. Water leaks through buildings' faulty exteriors damaged more than the exterior and so constituted covered "property damage," not just excluded defective construction. "Once defective construction causes damage, the cost to repair the damage is covered 'property damage.'" Judgment affirmed as amended to correct clerical error in apportionment of damages.… Continue Reading

Failure to defend results in liability and extra contractual damages against the insurer — Missouri Law

Posted in New Case
Columbia had a duty to defend its insured. When it failed to defend its insured for sending junk faxes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), it lost the right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement its insured entered into with the plaintiffs. There was coverage under both the property damage part of the policy and the advertising injury portion of the policy. The damages under the TCPA were not fines or penalties.… 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

Statutory damages for unsolicited faxes are not property damage (Missouri Law)

Posted in New Case
The statutory damages awarded under the TCPA for sending unsolicited faxes do not constitute "property damage" under the terms of Global's general commercial liability policy and the laws of this State. As such, Global's policy provides no coverage for the damages awarded in the settlement agreement, and the trial court erred in determining otherwise. The case is remanded to the trial court with an order to enter summary judgment in favor of American Family.… Continue Reading
Lexblog