The overwhelming authority nationwide suggests that commercial motor vehicle drivers are held to the same standard of care as all other drivers – ordinary negligence. However, that has not stopped plaintiffs’ attorneys from aggressively asserting that “professional drivers” should be held to a higher standard of care.

(Genuine Dispute Doctrine Bars Bad Faith Claim in Connection With Property Loss)

(Supreme Court Finds That Insureds Can Trigger Excess Insurance Policies on a Vertical Basis Without First Exhausting Lower Level Excess Policies on a Horizontal Basis)

(Third-Party Judgment Creditor is Bound by Forum Selection Clause Requiring Coverage Action to be Litigated in Australia)

(Insured Was Not Collaterally Estopped From Relying on California Law Governing Trigger of Coverage for Asbestosis Claim Settlement)

(Insurer May Appeal Default Judgment Entered Against Insured in Small Claims Court)

(Arbitration Clause Applied to Third-Party Beneficiary Claiming Coverage Under Policy as an Additional Insured for Personal Injury Claim)

(Underlying Antitrust Lawsuit Based on Fraudulent Procurement of Patent Did Not Constitute Potential Malicious Prosecution Triggering Duty to Defend Under Personal Injury Coverage Afforded by CGL Policy)