 |
Insurance Coverage
The insurance coverage practice consists of representing primary and excess insurers in coverage disputes involving a wide-range of liabilities including construction defects, mold, pollution, lead paint, asbestos, privacy and business-related torts, among others. Although we have made our mark by advising insurers on complex coverage matters under commercial general liability, commercial property, and professional liability policies, we also have a long history of advising insurers on coverage disputes under homeowners, family auto and other personal lines policies. Our clients have also included a number of public and private self-insurers. Our attorneys routinely represent insurers in coverage disputes in state and federal courts, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and enjoy a strong reputation with the trial and appellate judges of Virginia. We also often act as local counsel for out-of-state firms litigating in Virginia courts. Our coverage attorneys also frequently write and speak on a wide variety of coverage topics and issues. For more information regarding our services, please contact John Claytor at 804-747-5200 or jclaytor@hccw.com Articles & Publications Coverage Under the Commercial General Liability Policy for Construction Defect Claims in Virginia, The Journal of Civil Litigation, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (Summer 2007). The Insurer's Duty to Defend, The Journal of Civil Litigation, Vol. XVIII, No. 4 (Winter 2006-2007). Junk Faxes & "Advertising Injury": Coverage Under the Commercial General Liability Policy for Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, The Journal of Civil Litigation, Vol. XVII, No. 4 (Winter 2005-2006). Trigger and Allocation of Coverage for Continuous Bodily Injury or Property Damage Claims Under Consecutive Commercial General Liability Insurance Policies, The Journal of Civil Litigation, Vol. XVI, No. 3 (Fall 2004). Coverage for Defamation Claims Under the Commercial General Liability Policy, The Journal of Civil Litigation, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (Summer 2004). Insurance Law in Virginia, VA CLE (2002), Co-Editor, John M. Claytor. Recent Victories In Great American Ins. Co. v. Gross, et. al., Great American Insurance Company filed an action seeking rescission of a directors' and officers' liability policy and related declaratory relief. Great American based its claims on alleged misrepresentations in the application materials for the policy signed by the former president of the insured entity and fraud and dishonesty by the former president and another officer of the insured entity, both of whom had entered guilty pleas to charges of insurance fraud and other related crimes. The insureds filed a motion to dismiss requesting that the court abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. The District Court abstained from exercising its jurisdiction with respect to both the rescission claim and the claims for declaratory relief, applying the declaratory judgment abstention doctrine set forth in Wilton v. Seven Falls Co./Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. and dismissed the case. Great American appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, applying the more stringent federal abstention standard set forth in Colorado River Conservation Dist. v. United States, and held that the District Court had erred in dismissing both the claim for rescission and the related claims for declaratory relief. In Smurfit-Stone Container, a federal district court, applying Missouri law, concluded that a shipper did not enjoy additional insured status under a policy issued to a transportation carrier. The shipper sought coverage under the transportation carrier's policy for alleged liability arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's truck, a train, and one of the named insured's trucks. By endorsement, the policy extended additional insured status "as respects the operations of the Named Insured, but only with respect to the Named Insured's liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 'covered auto' and coverage shall be no broader than that afforded to the Named Insured." The court concluded that, under the plain language of the additional insured endorsement, "the policy extends coverage to [shipper] only to the extent that [shipper] is alleged to be vicariously liable for the actions of [transportation carrier]." Because the claims against the shipper were based solely upon its own negligence, the court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment. |
