In Frederking v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. 18-50536 (5th Cir. July 2, 2019), the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling that resulted in a liability policy’s coverage of punitive damages.

In Prophet Equity LP v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas held that the insureds were entitled to payment from the second-level excess carrier for the wrongful termination of the investment firm’s partner by the firm’s majority partner.

In ADI Worldlink, LLC. v. RSUI Idemnity Co., 932 F.3d.369 (5th Cir. 2019), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, finding that an “interrelatedness provision” of a claims made and reported policy, when read in conjunction with the policy’s notice requirement, precluded coverage for all wage claims against an insured, including those which were timely reported under a subsequent policy.

The strongest and most emblematic pillar of Texas insurance law is the eight-corners rule, which prohibits the consideration of evidence extrinsic to the pleadings and insurance policy in determining an insurer’s duty to defend.

The Texas Supreme Court recently issued two opinions holding that an insurer’s payment based on an appraisal award (1) precludes an insured’s claim that the insurer breached contract by failing to pay the amount of covered loss, as well as statutory and bad faith claims when the only actual damages sought are loss of policy benefits (Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, _____ S.W.3d. ____; No. 17-1048, 2019 WL 2710032 (Tex. June 28, 2019)); but (2) does not, as a matter of law, preclude an insurer’s liability under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA) or under the policy (Barbara Technologies Corporation v. State Farm Lloyds, ____ S.W.3d. _____; No. 17-0640, 2019 WL 2710089 (Tex. June 28, 2019)).

California’s Third Appellate District recently held that an acronym for an out-of-state fictitious business name does not comply with section 226(a)(8) of the state’s Labor Code.

In the first quarter of 2019, 11% of all retail sales in the United States, or more than $146 billion, were internet-based transactions. Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Division approved for publication an opinion confirming that a person-to-person transaction over the internet will not automatically confer personal jurisdiction on the seller when the buyer is a New Jersey resident.