June 20, 2013 2011 Issue 8  
Case Search Database Link
DRI Resources
    
 

 

Join the DRI Community

    

In This Issue
Plan to Join Us in D.C. and NYC
Build Your Practice, Build Your Network
ALABAMA
CALIFORNIA
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
ILLINOIS
LOUISIANA
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
Tangible vs. Intangible Damage: What Does First-Party Property Insurance Cover?
The Assignee Wants a New Pair of Shoes
Looking Forward, Looking Back: A Short Treatment of Insurance Issues Arising from the 2005 Hurricane Season
Will Misrepresentation Claims Be Covered by CGL Policies?
Lafayette v. Peerboom: A Case Study nn What Constitutes “That Particular Part” Under Exclusion J (5) and (6)
Seminar Information

Committee Leadership

 

Committee Chair
Michael M. Marick
Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson
(312) 474-7888
michael.marick@mbtlaw.com

Committee Vice Chair
Audrey A. Seeley
Hurwitz & Fine
(716) 849-8900
aas@hurwitzfine.com
 
Editor
Bryan M. Weiss
Murchison & Cumming
bweiss@murchisonlaw.com
 
Co-Editor
Wen-Shin Cheng
Tressler LLP
(312) 627-4181
wcheng@tresslerllp.com
             
Editor
Tiffany M. Brown
Meagher & Geer
(612) 371-1324
tbrown@meagher.com

 
Co-Editor
Shanda Pearson
Bassford Remele
(612) 376-1679
spearson@bassford.com

 
Editor
Elaine Murphy Pohl
Plunkett Cooney
(248) 901-4000
 
Co-Editor
Patrick B. Omilian
Goldberg Segalla
 

Editor
Suzanne Young Whitehead
Zelle McDonough & Cohen
(617) 742-6250
Co-Editor
Stevi Raab
Sedgwick LLP
(212) 422-0202
 
 


   Seminars

 
June 5-7, 2013
Boston, Massachusetts
 

DRI Publications   

http://dri.org/bookstore_icons/DLS-icon.jpg

Professional Liability Insurance: A Compendium of State Law

 

 Print to PDF

Recent Case Law Updates
MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN—Excess Insurance/Exhaustion Of Underlying Insurance
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled in Federal-Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust v. Continental Cas. Co. (6th Cir. July 8, 2011) that an umbrella carrier had no obligation to provide a defense to underlying asbestos claims following the exhaustion of the specific CGL policy listed in its schedule of underlying insurance where other primary insurers were still defending.  The court took note of a requirement in CNA's policy, stating that the insurer's obligation to defend only arose "when an occurrence is not covered by the underlying insurance listed in the underlying insurance schedule or any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured, but covered by the terms of this policy. . . ." Further, the Court refused to find that Continental's defense obligation was triggered by Condition 3 to the umbrella policy which required the umbrella carrier to "continue as underlying insurance" following the exhaustion of all underlying policies. While acknowledging that the reference to "underlying policies" might be found ambiguous if taken out of context, the Court held that in this case, the policy was clearly referencing prior language in Condition 3 that referred to Continental's liability as being for the ultimate net loss in excess of "the underlying limits of liability of the underlying insurance policies as stated and described in the Declarations and those of any underlying insurance collectible by the insured." The Sixth Circuit held, therefore, that under Michigan law, the umbrella carrier's obligation to defend did not arise until such time as all primary insurance had become exhausted. Further, the Court rejected the Trust's argument that it should be entitled to discovery on the parties' intent with respect to such concerns, holding that Michigan does not allow extrinsic evidence to determine intent when the words in question are clear and unambiguous and have a definite meaning.
 
Michael Aylward
Morrison Mahoney
Boston, MA

Back...