S&P500
2388.77
+1.32
+0.06%
 
NASDAQ
6048.94
+23.71
+0.39%
 
NYSE
11578.516
-14.394
-0.124%
 
MMM
196.11
+1.11
+0.57%
 
AXP
80.33
-0.19
-0.24%
 
T
39.91
-0.53
-1.31%
 
BA
183.22
+1.51
+0.83%
 
CAT
102.68
-1.98
-1.89%
 
CVX
105.47
-0.61
-0.58%
 
CSCO
33.75
+0.35
+1.05%
 
KO
43.01
-0.23
-0.53%
 
DD
80.13
-1.48
-1.81%
 
XOM
81.26
-0.14
-0.17%
 
GE
29.08
-0.18
-0.62%
 
GS
225.81
-0.39
-0.17%
 
HD
156.12
+1.9
+1.23%
 
INTC
37.43
+0.5
+1.35%
 
IBM
160.32
+0.26
+0.16%
 
JNJ
123.74
+0.23
+0.19%
 
JPM
87.61
-0.82
-0.93%
 
MCD
140.87
+0.03
+0.02%
 
MRK
62.58
-0.12
-0.19%
 
MSFT
68.27
+0.44
+0.65%
 
NKE
55.47
+0.31
+0.56%
 
PFE
33.86
+0.01
+0.03%
 
PG
87.69
-0.05
-0.06%
 
TRV
122.16
+0.15
+0.12%
 
UNH
174.63
+0.25
+0.14%
 
UTX
118.78
+0.58
+0.49%
 
VZ
46.67
-0.69
-1.46%
 
V
91.6
-0.22
-0.24%
 
WMT
75.44
+0.01
+0.01%
 
DIS
115.84
+0.26
+0.22%
 
S&P500
2388.77
+1.32
+0.06%
 
NASDAQ
6048.94
+23.71
+0.39%
 
NYSE
11578.516
-14.394
-0.124%
 
MMM
196.11
+1.11
+0.57%
 
AXP
80.33
-0.19
-0.24%
 
T
39.91
-0.53
-1.31%
 
BA
183.22
+1.51
+0.83%
 
CAT
102.68
-1.98
-1.89%
 
CVX
105.47
-0.61
-0.58%
 
CSCO
33.75
+0.35
+1.05%
 
KO
43.01
-0.23
-0.53%
 
DD
80.13
-1.48
-1.81%
 
XOM
81.26
-0.14
-0.17%
 
GE
29.08
-0.18
-0.62%
 
GS
225.81
-0.39
-0.17%
 
HD
156.12
+1.9
+1.23%
 
INTC
37.43
+0.5
+1.35%
 
IBM
160.32
+0.26
+0.16%
 
JNJ
123.74
+0.23
+0.19%
 
JPM
87.61
-0.82
-0.93%
 
MCD
140.87
+0.03
+0.02%
 
MRK
62.58
-0.12
-0.19%
 
MSFT
68.27
+0.44
+0.65%
 
NKE
55.47
+0.31
+0.56%
 
PFE
33.86
+0.01
+0.03%
 
PG
87.69
-0.05
-0.06%
 
TRV
122.16
+0.15
+0.12%
 
UNH
174.63
+0.25
+0.14%
 
UTX
118.78
+0.58
+0.49%
 
VZ
46.67
-0.69
-1.46%
 
V
91.6
-0.22
-0.24%
 
WMT
75.44
+0.01
+0.01%
 
DIS
115.84
+0.26
+0.22%
 
  • Risk Management & Loss Prevention
  • E&O Tip
  • E&O Tip
  • Continuing Education
  • Social Media Marketing

Featured Articles

MORE ARTICLES

Insurance Blog

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

Insurers Beware: Wisconsin Court of Appeals Hold Expected/Intended Injury Exclusion Inapplicable to Injuries Arising from an Insured’s Negligent Supervision of its Employee

In Talley v. Mustafa (Wisc. App., Apr. 5, 2017), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found coverage available in an underlying negligence suit against a store owner and reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto Owners Insurance Company. The court’s holding, in essence, was that a reasonable person in the insured’s position would have expected that his insurance policy would cover a customer’s negligence suit, including negligence in training/supervising an employee who contributed to the customer’s

Read More

Enough is Enough: Fifth Circuit Holds Duty to Defend Does Not Include Costs of Prosecuting Insured’s Fee-Dispute Counterclaim

Aldous v. Darwin National Assurance Co., No. 16-10537 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017), presents a thicket of coverage issues. However, the clearest and most significant one for the insurance industry is that the duty to defend, under Texas law, does not extend to the cost of prosecuting an insured’s counterclaim. This coverage litigation started as an attorney-client dispute over the non-payment fees and then morphed into a legal malpractice action. Darwin National Assurance Co. insured Aldous under a professional liability

Read More

Enough is Enough: Fifth Circuit Holds Duty to Defend Does Not Include Costs of Prosecuting Insured’s Fee-Dispute Counterclaim

Aldous v. Darwin National Assurance Co., No. 16-10537 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017), presents a thicket of coverage issues. However, the clearest and most significant one for the insurance industry is that the duty to defend, under Texas law, does not extend to the cost of prosecuting an insured’s counterclaim. This coverage litigation started as an attorney-client dispute over the non-payment fees and then morphed into a legal malpractice action. Darwin National Assurance Co. insured Aldous under a professional liability

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