Applying Texas law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas has held that there is no duty to defend an insured under a CGL policy for allegations of malicious disparagement, where the policy precluded coverage for knowingly false disparagement and knowing attempts to violate others’ rights and inflict personal and advertising injury. Chartis Spec. Ins. Co. v. JSW Steel (USA), Inc., No. 4:14-cv-01527 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 8, 2015).
Latest Post
More Posts
Dishonesty Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claim Alleging Fraudulent Inducement to Extend Loan
Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claims against Bank Accused of Facilitating Ponzi Scheme
Insurer Not Estopped from Relying on Exclusion in Unilaterally Disclaiming Duty to Defend; Business Enterprise Exclusion Bars Coverage
Prejudice Irrelevant to Late Notice Where Timely Notice Is Condition Precedent
Insurer Need Not Demonstrate Prejudice to Disclaim Coverage for Late Notice under Excess Claims-Made Policy
Bad Faith Exclusion Bars Coverage for Bad Faith Failure to Settle Claim That Also Alleges Negligence
No Coverage for SEC Investigation Where Initial Investigative Order First Issued Before the Policy Period
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org