After the Zurich American Insurance Co (ZAIC) in Missouri, USA paid out a claim on wrongful death from asbestos exposure, it sought a contribution from Insurance Company of North America (INA). The claim for contribution failed because the INA policy had a pollution exclusion but the principles of contribution between insurers were discussed.
The facts
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
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
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
A New Jersey appeals court refused to grant cover for a loss of $4 million worth of opals ruined inside a safe that had to be opened with a blowtorch.
The claim was made against the company that sold the safe and were involved in the day long effort to get the safe opened when
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
Where a bill of lading provided that ‘the carrier shall in no case be responsible for loss of or damage to the cargo, howsoever arising … in respect of deck cargo’ the English High Court held that the provision effectively excluded liability for deck cargo which was lost overboard from the vessel in heavy seas.
Where the purchaser of an oil refinery sued the seller for breach of contract for $25 million damages resulting from a fire caused by various acts and omissions of the seller prior to the sale, the claim was not covered under the seller’s commercial general liability policy. The claim was not based on property damage
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
A refining company claimed under its equipment breakdown insurance policy following an explosion that occurred when a segment of a pipe in a charge heater designed to refine the petroleum product naphtha burst. A 600 degree naphtha mixture was running through the pipe at more than 14 000 pounds per hour and, when the charge