Homeowners’ policy may cover drowning in bathtub 
Published: May 10, 2011
Tags: homeowners’ insurance, wrongful death
A family exclusion in a homeowners’ policy does not necessarily preclude coverage of a wrongful death claim involving a child who drowned in a bathtub at her stepmother’s home, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
Insurance covers fire set by family member
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: February 18, 2011
Tags: homeowners’ insurance
An “intentional acts” exclusion did not completely bar coverage of an insurance claim made by insureds whose son intentionally set a fire in their home, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
Grandparents didn’t cause child’s eye injury
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: February 7, 2011
Tags: homeowners’ insurance, negligence
The failure of grandparents to obtain prompt medical attention could not be deemed the legal cause of their grandson’s permanent eye injury, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a jury verdict.
Policy covers homeowner who didn’t prevent molestation
By:
Sylvia Hsieh
Published: June 18, 2010
Tags: homeowners’ insurance, intentional acts exclusion, severability clause
A homeowner’s insurance policy may cover negligent supervision claims against an insured whose son molested a boy, the California Supreme Court has ruled in answering a certified question from the 9th Circuit.
Home insurer not entitled to subrogation
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: May 28, 2010
Tags: homeowners’ insurance, subrogation
A homeowners’ insurer could not recover payments made to settle a fire damage claim from a boyfriend of the insured whose negligence caused the blaze, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a $63,000 judgment.
Insurer had no duty to indemnify in suit over false statements
By:
Correy Stephenson
Published: October 28, 2009
Tags: homeowners’ insurance, indemnification
Water damage that was alleged not revealed to home purchasers does not constitute “property damage” under a homeowner’s policy, and the insurer therefore does not have a duty to indemnify or defend against a lawsuit brought against the sellers, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled.
SUBSCRIBERS: Did you receive the new Lawyers USA Weekly Update in your inbox on Monday?
If not, click here to register and learn more now.
