Tag archives: Exclusions

Arising from, in connection with, directly or indirectly, arising directly or indirectly from or in any way connected with: insurance (Aus)

This Australian judgment considered whether the insurer could correctly rely on a number of exclusions to a claim by its insured for cover under the liability section of the policy. The policy used two composite formulations to connote the requisite relationship between the liability and the exclusion. The first formulation excluded liability “arising from, or … Continue reading

COVID-19 is not insured ‘pollution’ (USA)

An American court has held that an insurer’s ‘premises pollution liability’ policy only covers environmental pollution and not the COVID-19 outbreak. Because COVID-19 is a type of virus it does not constitute traditional environmental pollution. The court said that the policy only covers pollutants commonly thought of as environmental pollution. The insured had argued that … Continue reading

Court applies ‘arising out of the operations’ exclusion in liability policy (US)

A Texas federal judge ruled that the insurer did not have to defend a design and construction consultant against the employer’s liability claim for a defective oil well because cover was excluded for property damage to ‘that particular part of real property on which any contractor working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing … Continue reading

Enforceability of a clause excluding liability for negligence

A clear and unambiguous exclusion clause may be relied upon to avoid liability for damages arising from the negligent failure to fulfil a contractual duty. The wording of the exclusion clause must, however, specifically mention the extent to which liability is excluded. The courts generally interpret an exclusion clause as not covering negligent conduct if … Continue reading

Insurance claims and COVID-19

If you haven’t already dusted off the business interruption, liability and event cancellation policies you have underwritten, or placed for an insured, and checked for coronavirus coverage, now is the time to do so. Exposure and benefits of both business interruption coverage (covering the insureds losses from an abrupt shutdown) and contingent business interruption coverage … Continue reading

War exclusion requires hostilities between sovereign states (US)

A Californian court of appeals found that war exclusions which exclude coverage for expenses resulting from “war” or “warlike action by a military force” require hostilities between de jure or de facto governments (governments or entities essentially like governments). The insured was a film company producing a television series in Jerusalem when Hamas fired rockets … Continue reading

Bin with wheels is not a ‘vehicle’ (US)

A New York Appeals Court unsurprisingly found that a recycling bin with wheels, which ruptured a gas line used by residents of an apartment building, is not a ‘vehicle’. An all risks policy exclusion did not apply if there was ‘direct loss causing physical damage to covered property from vehicles’. The court said that not … Continue reading

Cyber insurance and the war exclusion

Cyber insurers should note the debate going on in London regarding reform of the war exclusion clause in cyber insurance. The perpetrators of cyber incidents are often untraceable and it is difficult to ascertain whether they constitute state-sponsored acts of war subject to the war exclusion clause. There is at least one pending action where … Continue reading

Evidence of sudden and accidental pollution rejected (US)

A corporation which operated two industrial sites found significant amounts of ground water contamination. Its attempt to get insurance cover on the basis that the pollution was sudden and accidental was unsuccessful because the evidence of its expert was rejected as not being based on sound methodology. The pollution exclusion therefore defeated the claim. On … Continue reading

Power station damaged by shocked squirrel is excluded

Where a squirrel found its way onto a power station’s electrical transformer triggering an electrical arc that killed the squirrel and caused damage to the municipality’s property of $213 524, the court denied the municipality all-risks insurance cover because of an exclusion for ‘loss caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning’. The court … Continue reading
LexBlog