In Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2019 WI 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reduced the recovery obtained by an insurer that defended its insured from another insurer that breached its duty to defend – requiring the plaintiff insurer to pay its pro rata share of the risk.

In Britt v. Otto, 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 397 (Mar. 26, 2019), the Missouri Court of Appeals opened the door to an argument that an insurer’s statutory right to intervene in a liability lawsuit after a 537 notice may not apply as to an arbitration conducted to determine liability and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling denying the insurer the right to intervene in the action to confirm the arbitration award of $5,998,027.

In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC, v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, 18A-PL-2205, 2019 Ind. App. Lexis 355 (Ind. Ct. App. August 9, 2019), the court affirmed a trial court decision that a policy clearly did not cover a hacking loss, but reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings on a claim that the quote for the policy was misleading.

In Illinois State Bar Asso. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McNabola Law Group, P.C., 2019 IL App (1st) 182386, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a malpractice insurer did not owe a duty to defend its insured attorney against his client’s motion to adjudicate (and defeat) his lien. The insurer did not dispute its obligation to defend a related malpractice suit.

(“Care, Custody and Control” Exclusion in Commercial General Liability Policy Only Applies Where the Insured Has Exclusive or Complete Control Over the Damaged Property)

(Depositing a Check With the Bank Constitutes a Loss Of Possession by a Transfer Such That UCC 3-309 Does Not Apply)

(An Insurance Claim is Fraudulent Within the Meaning of Penal Code Section 550 when It is False or Fraudulent in Any Respect, Even If There is No Misstatement in the Facts of the Claim)

(Notice-Prejudice Rule is a Fundamental Public Policy Which Applies to Choice of Law and Consent Provisions in Policy)