SDV Blog

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship ExclusionsOct 19, 2017

A California Court of Appeal recently released a policyholder-friendly decision clarifying the meaning of the often-arising Faulty Workmanship exclusions — j.(5) and j.(6).  The court emphasized the importance of policy language and took a plain-meaning approach to interpret the exclusions.  It found that exclusion j(5) narrowly applies only to damage occurring during active physical construction activities and that j(6) narrowly applies only to the specific part of the insured’s work…

Read More »
No General Liability Coverage for an Obstacle Course Race InjuryOct 11, 2017

With the rise in popularity of obstacle course racing, millions have participated in races like Spartan Race, Rugged Maniac, Tough Mudder and Warrior Dash in the last ten years.  Although serious injuries are rare relative to the number of participants, several recent incidents have caused race companies and participants to question whether their insurance will cover injuries sustained during one of these extreme competitions.  Many race directors and venue owners…

Read More »
Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional InsuredOct 05, 2017

In early September, California, again, proved itself to be a pro-policyholder state, in a recent court of appeal decision.  The court of appeal stated that manuscript additional insured endorsement language which provided coverage, “but only with respect to liability arising out of ‘your work’ and only as respects ongoing operations . . .” and “but only with respect to liability arising out of ‘your work’ which is ongoing . ….

Read More »
PA High Court: Proof of Insurer’s Ill Will is Not Required for Bad Faith ClaimSep 29, 2017

On September 28, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered an opinion adopting a two-part test for proving a claim under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute.  To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, “the plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable…

Read More »