S&P500
2440.69
+21.31
+0.88%
 
NASDAQ
6234.414
+87.792
+1.4283%
 
NYSE
11812.8
+95.88
+0.82%
 
MMM
210.62
+0.84
+0.40%
 
AXP
83.97
+0.89
+1.07%
 
T
37.94
+0.24
+0.64%
 
BA
199.62
+0.73
+0.37%
 
CAT
106.45
+2.52
+2.42%
 
CVX
104.28
+0.21
+0.20%
 
CSCO
32.08
+0.32
+1.01%
 
KO
45.32
+0.27
+0.60%
 
DD
81.28
+0.59
+0.73%
 
XOM
81.53
+0.42
+0.52%
 
GE
27.08
-0.13
-0.48%
 
GS
223.22
+2.94
+1.33%
 
HD
153.23
+0.99
+0.65%
 
INTC
34.2
+0.55
+1.63%
 
IBM
155.32
+0.57
+0.37%
 
JNJ
133.82
-1.19
-0.88%
 
JPM
89.82
+1.77
+2.01%
 
MCD
154.3
+0.58
+0.38%
 
MRK
65.16
-0.38
-0.58%
 
MSFT
69.8
+0.59
+0.85%
 
NKE
53.36
+0.41
+0.77%
 
PFE
33.75
-0.02
-0.06%
 
PG
88.37
-0.24
-0.27%
 
TRV
127.78
+0.4
+0.31%
 
UNH
185.7
+1.1
+0.60%
 
UTX
122.5
+0.91
+0.75%
 
VZ
44.84
0.00
0.00%
 
V
96.23
+1.33
+1.40%
 
WMT
76.51
+0.5
+0.66%
 
DIS
106.86
+1.45
+1.38%
 
S&P500
2440.69
+21.31
+0.88%
 
NASDAQ
6234.414
+87.792
+1.4283%
 
NYSE
11812.8
+95.88
+0.82%
 
MMM
210.62
+0.84
+0.40%
 
AXP
83.97
+0.89
+1.07%
 
T
37.94
+0.24
+0.64%
 
BA
199.62
+0.73
+0.37%
 
CAT
106.45
+2.52
+2.42%
 
CVX
104.28
+0.21
+0.20%
 
CSCO
32.08
+0.32
+1.01%
 
KO
45.32
+0.27
+0.60%
 
DD
81.28
+0.59
+0.73%
 
XOM
81.53
+0.42
+0.52%
 
GE
27.08
-0.13
-0.48%
 
GS
223.22
+2.94
+1.33%
 
HD
153.23
+0.99
+0.65%
 
INTC
34.2
+0.55
+1.63%
 
IBM
155.32
+0.57
+0.37%
 
JNJ
133.82
-1.19
-0.88%
 
JPM
89.82
+1.77
+2.01%
 
MCD
154.3
+0.58
+0.38%
 
MRK
65.16
-0.38
-0.58%
 
MSFT
69.8
+0.59
+0.85%
 
NKE
53.36
+0.41
+0.77%
 
PFE
33.75
-0.02
-0.06%
 
PG
88.37
-0.24
-0.27%
 
TRV
127.78
+0.4
+0.31%
 
UNH
185.7
+1.1
+0.60%
 
UTX
122.5
+0.91
+0.75%
 
VZ
44.84
0.00
0.00%
 
V
96.23
+1.33
+1.40%
 
WMT
76.51
+0.5
+0.66%
 
DIS
106.86
+1.45
+1.38%
 
  • Risk Management & Loss Prevention
  • E&O Tip
  • E&O Tip
  • Continuing Education
  • Social Media Marketing

Featured Articles

MORE ARTICLES

Insurance Blog

Pennsylvania Court Rejects Manifestation Trigger for Latent Property Damage Claims

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently determined that the multiple trigger rule, and not the manifestation rule, is the proper standard to use when determining whether an insurance policy is triggered in an environmental property damage claim involving a long latency period between exposure and manifestation. See Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., 2017 WL 1418401 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Apr. 21, 2017), This decision, which is at odds with statements by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Read More

The Road Less Traveled: In a Case of First Impression, Indiana Court of Appeals Holds SIR Applicable to Additional Insureds

In Walsh Construction Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 137 (Mar. 28, 2017), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company and against Walsh Construction Company. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that a self-insured retention (SIR) applied not only to the insurer’s relationship with the named insured, but also, to any additional insureds. Thus, because the named insured

Read More

Intoxication Not a Defense to Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion, Massachusetts Appellate Court Says

In Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Casey, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 243 (Mar. 29, 2017), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held in essence, that the insured (Casey)’s impairment due to alcohol and drugs at the time of the underlying assault did not render the insurance policy’s expected or intended exclusion inapplicable. The undisputed facts established that Casey had the capacity to form the requisite intent to injure the underlying plaintiff. Seventeen-year-old Casey “sucker punched” Williams, the underlying plaintiff, in the

Read More

Minnesota Supreme Court Limits Insurers’ Extracontractual Liability: An Insured’s Recovery of “Proceeds Awarded” for Insurer’s Unreasonable Denial of Benefits Must Consider Policy Limit

In Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. A15-1438 (Minn. April 5, 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court greatly limited the insured’s recovery under the First-Party Bad Faith Statute, Section (Minn. Stat. § 604.18). Although State Farm was found to have unreasonably denied John Wilbur benefits under his underinsured-motorist policy, the calculation of his recovery for “proceeds awarded” had to take into account the policy’s limit of liability. As background, on January 10, 2009, Wilbur suffered serious neck injuries

Read More

Plain Language, Surplus, and Reasonable Expectations: Utah Supreme Court Uses Entire Contract Construction Toolbox in Concluding Policy Inapplicable to Botched Real Estate Deal

In Compton v. Houston Casualty Co., 2017 UT 17 (Mar. 23, 2017), the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Houston Casualty Company , holding that Houston Casualty had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in an underlying real estate transaction gone bad. Essentially, Utah’s high court held that because the insured did not provide services “for a fee” in the underlying transaction, the underlying plaintiffs were barred from coverage under

Read More

Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Give a “Dam”: Seventh Circuit Holds Professional Liability Insurer Off the Hook in Neighborhood Dispute Tangentially Related to Unobtained Dam Permit

In Madison Mutual Insurance Co. v. Diamond State Insurance Co., No. 15-3292 (7th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017), the Seventh Circuit handed down a decision delineating the obligations between a professional liability insurer and a homeowner’s insurer. At bottom, the court refused to hold a professional liability insurer responsible for the defense of a suit that only tangentially referencing the insured’s professional services. As background, Dr. William and Wendy Dribben purchased a house in 1999 at Heartland Oaks, an exclusive development.

Read More

Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Give a “Dam”: Seventh Circuit Holds Professional Liability Insurer Off the Hook in Neighborhood Dispute Tangentially Related to Unobtained Dam Permit

In Madison Mutual Insurance Co. v. Diamond State Insurance Co., No. 15-3292 (7th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017), the Seventh Circuit handed down a decision delineating the obligations between a professional liability insurer and a homeowner’s insurer. At bottom, the court refused to hold a professional liability insurer responsible for the defense of a suit that only tangentially referencing the insured’s professional services. As background, Dr. William and Wendy Dribben purchased a house in 1999 at Heartland Oaks, an exclusive development.

Read More
MORE BLOG POSTS
learn more
VIEW RATINGS FOR INSURERS
Enter name of Insurance Company and press GO button.