| In This Issue |
The Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Self-Defense is "Accidental"/
Unintentional" Conduct
Is An Arbitration Panel's "Manifest Disregard of the Law" Still a Viable Basis for Contesting an Adverse Arbitration Award?
Insured's Failure To Cooperate Results in No Coverage
Court Refuses To Create Insurance Coverage Through Waiver
Tavern's Duty of Care Not Extended To Providing Alternate Means of Transportation |
| Meet Our Insurance Law Group |
|
|
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Self-Defense is "Accidental"/"Unintentional" Conduct
By unanimous decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently concluded, on an issue of first-impression, that coverage was owed under a policy of homeowner's insurance for an insured's actions which caused bodily injury to another where the insured claimed he acted in self-defense. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz, 290 Conn. 582, 966 A.2d 672 (2009).
Click here to read the entire article. |
 Many reinsurance contracts, and growing numbers of insurance policies, contain arbitration clauses. The thought behind such clauses is that it is faster, cheaper and easier to reach a resolution of business differences in an arbitration setting, rather than a courtroom. However, there are a number of trade-offs, including limitations on a dissatisfied party's ability to obtain court review of an adverse arbitration award. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq., (the "FAA"), which will be applicable to a large number of arbitrations, there are four statutory bases for a court to vacate an arbitration award.
Click here to read the entire article |
|
News & Notes
- Insured's Failure To Cooperate Results In No Coverage: Recently, in Selective Insurance Company v. Oliveira, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41660 (D.Conn. May 18, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the carrier where the carrier asserted that, based upon the insured's lack of cooperation, it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured in three underlying actions. Read more.
- Court Refuses To Create Insurance Coverage Through Waiver: In the case of Wiretek, Inc. v. The Phoenix Insurance Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company (decision unpublished), the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford recently struck three causes of action from the plaintiff's complaint, asserting waiver and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance and Unfair Trade Practices' Acts, respectively. Read more.
- Tavern's Duty of Care Not Extended To Providing Alternate Means of Transportation: In Welton v. Ferrara, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1016 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2009) (Keegan, J.), Halloran & Sage obtained a notable decision on behalf of its client, a tavern, which protected the tavern from additional exposure under its general liability insurance policy. In Welton, a minor, who had gained admittance to the tavern using fake identification, was served alcohol, became intoxicated, and was thereafter involved in a tragic motor vehicle accident in which both she and her passenger, the plaintiff/decedent, died. Read more.
- Steven B. Ryan of Halloran & Sage's Insurance Coverage Practice Group recently presented a seminar on emerging trends in Connecticut law with issues facing first-party and third-party claims. The seminar focused on the effect of foreclosures and Madoff claims on homeowners policies, and premises liability claims involving trespassers, licensees and invitees. The presentation also focused on ways in which a carrier might protect their rights when adjusting a claim presented by a homeowner and/or mortgagee. Read more.
|
|
