The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania had to decide whether the insured's claim that a regular use exclusion in an auto policy could not be enforced because of the insured's reasonable expectations of coverage was valid. This case arose from a dispute over underinsured motorist coverage.

The case dealing with the other insurance clause is from New York and involved a dispute between two insurers over the question of respective responsibility for the cost of defending a mutual insured. The policies of the general liability carrier and the D&O carrier both covered the same insured, both had other insurance clauses, and both applied to the allegations against the insured. Which insurer had the duty of primary defense and was there any obligation on the part of the insurers to share defense costs?

The last two cases discuss faulty workmanship claims and possible coverage under the CGL form. The Supreme Court of Indiana was presented with this issue: whether a standard commercial general liability policy covers an insured contractor for the faulty workmanship of its subcontractor. The Supreme Court of Georgia also ruled on coverage for a subcontractor's faulty workmanship, but this case centered mainly on the issue of whether faulty workmanship is an occurrence.

Questions and Answers

A refrigerated van, subject to motor vehicle law registration, is used to store merchandise. If the refrigeration fails and causes damage to goods inside, is this a mobile equipment loss or can the auto exclusion in the CGL form apply? See Mobile Equipment Definition and Auto Exclusion. The insured runs a snow removal operation for vehicles. During one operation, the vehicle is damaged. Does the care, custody, or control exclusion in the CGL form apply? See Snow Removal Operation under CGL Form.

An unscheduled trailer with a load capacity of 2,000 pounds or greater was involved in an at-fault accident. Does the BAP apply to the claim? See Trailer Coverage under BAP. The named insured's daughter is involved in an auto accident while driving a schedule auto. She rents a substitute car in her name. Is the rental car covered for liability and physical damage exposures? See Rental Car Exposures under PAP.  

The Tort of Bad Faith

This chart indicates which of the fifty states and the District of Columbia recognizes the tort of bad faith in first party claims against insurers. Note that the states' position on the tort of bad faith in first party claims is not set; positions may be overturned by subsequent court rulings. See Recognition of the Tort of Bad Faith in First Party Claims Against Insurers.

Status of Punitive Damages Insurability

This chart presents the status of punitive damages awards in each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. For each jurisdiction, the chart shows whether punitive damages are insurable, noninsurable, insurable as to vicarious liability, not recognized, or undetermined. Precedent-setting court citations establishing the states' positions are included. Note that the positions of the various states on the insurability of punitive damages awards are not permanently set; varying circumstances, changing state laws, and subsequent court rulings may revise the various positions. See Legal Status of Punitive Damages Insurability.