Law.com Blog Network

About The Bloggers

Blogroll

Volokh Conspiracy
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Professor Bainbridge
Ernie the Attorney
SCOTUSblog
Althouse
Dennis Kennedy
Bag and Baggage
Patently-O
Patent Baristas
PrawfsBlawg

Recent Posts

Categories

LegalTech New York 2008



Archive

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007

November 2007

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

January 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

September 2006

August 2006

July 2006

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July 2005

June 2005

May 2005

April 2005

March 2005

February 2005

January 2005

December 2004

November 2004



 

Homeowners' Insurance Not the Same as Homewreckers' Insurance

Marc Mayerson of Insurance Scrawl posts about the current state of the law governing an Insurers' Duty to Defend Their Insureds Against Intentional Torts. But what I found most interesting about the post wasn't the general discussion of an insurers' duty to defend in intentional tort cases but rather one of the examples that Mayerson discussed, where an insured attempted to invoke his insurer's duty to defend.

That case is Pins v. State Farm Fire and Gas. Co., where an insured sought coverage under a personal liability insurance umbrella policy for liability and defense costs arising out of a suit filed against him for alienation of affection by his lover's husband. The court determined that by definition, alienation of affection was an intentional tort, which could not be deemed an accident, for which coverage might be available. From the decision: 

[T]he comfort and consortium injuries alleged by [the husband] were sufficient to state a claim for alienation of affections, and under South Dakota law, [the husband] could not recover on this claim unless he proved that Pins intended to cause those specific injuries. In these circumstances, any ‘loss’ to [the husband] was ‘expected or intended’ by Pins and could not be deemed an ‘accident.’ Therefore, State Farm had no contractual duty to defend.

Mayerson has the best characterization of the court's decision, however. He concludes, "Put differently, the court found that State Farm issued a homeowner’s policy, not a home-wrecker’s policy." 

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on February 13, 2007 at 02:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Comments

bestchocolatebar, chocolate fountain,chocolate fondue fountain,chocolate fountain rival,chocolate fountain rental,chocolate fountain recipe,chocolate fountain wedding,sephra chocolate fountain,chocolate fountain ct,chocolate fondue fountain recipe,belgian chocolate fountain,chocolate fountain hire,chocolate fountain connecticut,chocolate fountain san diego,chocolate fountain fruit,build chocolate fondue fountain,gourmet chocolate,gourmet chocolate gift basket,gourmet chocolate gift,gourmet hot chocolate,gourmet chocolate truffles,gourmet chocolate candy,gourmet dark chocolate,gourmet chocolate pretzels,gourmet chocolate basket,gourmet chocolate chicago,best gourmet chocolate,chocolate lg,chocolate lg phone,chocolate lg white,chocolate lg pink,chocolate lg phone pink,cobalt boat for sale,chocolate lg review,accessory chocolate lg,chocolate lg spec,chocolate lg red,chocolate lg look suede,

Posted by: bestchocolatebar | Jun 28, 2007 5:01:02 PM

Post a comment






 
 
 
About ALM | About law.com | Customer Support
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions