Home Page The Publication The Editor Contact Information Insurance Key issues Book Subscribe
Vol. 9 - Issue 7
October 30, 2020

Case of First Impression: PFAS And The Pollution Exclusion
I believe that last week’s North Carolina federal court decision in Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, No. 19-534 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2020) is the first case addressing the pollution exclusion and the white hot issue of PFAS.  Check out this White and Williams Alert on the decision:

New Jersey Legislature Introduces Bill Regarding The Virus Exclusion And Policy Renewals
On October 8th the New Jersey Assembly introduced Bill no. 4805 the includes the following requirement (as well as the same for policies already in effect): “An insurer shall disclose, in a form and manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, to any potential purchaser of or any policyholder seeking renewal of a policy insuring against loss or damage to property that includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption in this State whether the policy provides coverage for global virus transmission or pandemic coverage.”  I’m just a bill, sittin’ on Capitol Hill….

Insurer Being WrongBad Faith.  No Brown Bag Required For Policyholders.
Some policyholder lawyers like to maintain that an insurer commits bad faith when its coverage determination is found to have been wrong.  But courts frequently show that such hyperventilation is not justified.  This conclusion by the court, in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ozark Mt. Poultry, No. 20-CV-5014 (D. Ark. Sept. 21, 2020), resembles many other judicial  observations: “Having reviewed the policy language out of which the dispute arises and the ‘controlling authority’ Ozark cites regarding lost profits, the Court cannot reasonably infer ‘dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct’ by either Plaintiff in denying coverage. A disagreement as to the facts or the applicable law, even if the insurance company is mistaken in its position, does not rise to the level of bad faith. The Court cannot, even by reasonable inference, conclude that a plausible claim has been made that Nationwide and Great American acted with malice in denying coverage to Ozark under the CGL policies.’” 



Website by Balderrama Design Copyright Randy Maniloff All Rights Reserved