(Claim Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Is Per Se A Claim for Invasion of Privacy Within the Meaning of Policy Exclusion)

(Exclusions j.(5) and j.(6) Do Not Apply to Bar Damage Sustained by Non-Defective Work Performed by Subcontractor Which was Caused by the Subcontractor’s Defective Work and Delay Damages Assessed in Connection With Repairing Subcontractor’s Work Were Covered)

(Application of Horizontal or Vertical Trigger of Coverage Under Numerous Excess Policies Depends on the Specific Language of Each Such Policy)

(Insurer Obligated to Defend Additional Insured General Contractor Under Endorsement Affording Ongoing Operations Coverage, Notwithstanding that Underlying Lawsuit Related to Homes Completed after Expiration of Insurer’s Policy)

(Stay of Discovery Served by Insurers is Required Where Such Discovery Related to Factual Issues in Underlying Third Party Lawsuits)

(Professional Services Exclusion Applied to Bar Coverage of Claims Arising Out of Pipeline Explosion)

(Rescission of Liability Policy Barred Based on Ambiguous Questions in Application for Insurance)

On July 18, 2017, a Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a $38.5 million punitive damages award in a fatal workplace shooting case. See Wilson v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 2017 PA Super 226. A three-judge panel held that the claim for punitive damages was improperly allowed because it was introduced outside the statute of limitations.