In March of this year, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a split decision in addressing a familiar fact pattern involving whether the extent of duty owed by an insurance broker included the duty to advise concerning the adequacy of coverage.

(Intellectual Property Exclusion Applies to Bar Coverage of Underlying Lawsuit Based on Misappropriation of Name and Likeness)

(Health Insurer Waives the Right to Rescind Personal Health Policy Due to a Two Year Delay in Electing to Rescind Policy)

(Sexual Assault and Potential False Imprisonment Claim Did Not Constitute Personal Injury Caused by an Occurrence as Required by Primary Homeowners Policy, However, Because the Insured’s Personal Umbrella Policy Did Not Require an Occurrence In Order to Trigger Personal Injury Coverage, Trial Court is Required to Consider Whether The Duty to Defend is Owed Under the Umbrella Policy for the Underlying Lawsuit.)

(Contaminated Beef Provided by Supplier to Insured for Use in Manufacturing its Food Products Did Not Constitute an “Insured Product” Entitling Insured to Coverage for the Recall of Such Products Based on the Fear of Contamination.)

(The Trial Court’s Denial of Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Procedural Grounds Did Not Establish the Duty to Defend Under Insurer’s Policy. In Addition, the Insured Was Entitled to Try Its Claim For Damages Based on the Insurer’s Alleged Breach of the Duty to Defend, Not Withstanding That Insured Received Payment of Defense Costs From Other Insurers Exceeding Its Claim of Unreimbursed Fees and Damages.)

(Insurance Code Section 11583 Tolling Applicable Statute of Limitations Applies to Medical Malpractice Actions)