An architecture firm is entitled to $361,923.25, plus prejudgment interest of $57,671.16, from its insurer for the insurer’s breach of its duty to defend the architecture firm from a lawsuit arising from construction defects that resulted from a subcontractor’s negligence, a Minnesota federal judge held Aug. 13
A Maryland appeals panel on Aug. 10 affirmed a trial court’s decision to award damages to a man who developed mesothelioma as a result of working on a building project where asbestos insulation was used, ruling that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the claims that were made (Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. William Edward Busch Jr., No. 1055, Sept. Term 2017, Md. Spec. App.).
Claims for breach of contract and bad faith arising out of an insurer’s denial of coverage for an underlying wrongful eviction suit will proceed, a California federal judge said July 26 after determining that the insurer failed to prove that the underlying suit is excluded by any of the applicable policy exclusions (Black Mountain Center L.P., et al., v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, No. 17-1776, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125496
Mealey's (May 9, 2017, 1:13 PM EDT) -- ST. PAUL, Minn. — A trial court erred by releasing an asbestos settlement trust of any duty to pay a law firm for work on a claim filed with an insolvent insurer despite finding that the firm performed some uncompensated work on that claim for which a promise to pay was implied, a Minnesota panel held May 8 (Faricy Law Firm, P.A., v. API Inc., Asbestos Settlement Trust, No. A16-1539, Minn. App., 2017 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 421).
(Unpublished opinion available. Document #10-170526-020Z.)