On August 27th, a California Appellate Court held that an employment practices liability insurance policy’s “wage and hour” exclusion must be construed narrowly to bar coverage only for claims related to “laws concerning duration worked and/or remuneration received in exchange for work.” In doing so, the court made clear that “wage and hour” exclusions do not preclude coverage for claims that go beyond the employee’s actual remuneration received in exchange for work.
Continue Reading Wage and Hour Exclusion Must Be Construed Narrowly
Scope Of Coverage
Bad Faith Insurance Quote Defeats Summary Judgment
By Michael S. Levine & Adriana A. Perez on
On Friday, August 9th, an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling and allowed an insureds’ claim for bad faith based on misrepresentations in the insurer’s quote for coverage to proceed to trial.
…
Continue Reading Bad Faith Insurance Quote Defeats Summary Judgment
Wording of Additional-Insured Provisions Makes All The Difference
By Michael S. Levine on
Posted in Duty to Defend, Duty to Indemnify
A New York appellate court ruled recently in Hanover Insurance Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121 (1st Dep’t March 27, 2018), that an insurance policy did not cover an additional named insured over a personal-injury lawsuit arising from its alleged negligence because coverage was limited only to injuries caused by the named insured. This decision again underscores, as we advised in a recent Blog Post addressing JP Energy Marketing LLC v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Co. (which can be found here), the importance of carefully evaluating the wording of “additional insured” provisions, which can vary widely in scope and effect.
…
Continue Reading Wording of Additional-Insured Provisions Makes All The Difference