Results

Novak Law Case No. 1743: This insurance coverage dispute involved the question of whether a co-insurer owed a duty to indemnify a construction company for a $900,000 default judgment entered against it in an underlying construction action. At trial, Novak Law successfully argued that the construction company was an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, and the co-insurer was estopped from relying on its policy defenses because it failed to file a timely declaratory judgment action.  The co-insurer appealed on the grounds that the underlying judgment was void and the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test when it held that the co-insurer was estopped from relying on its policy defenses.  The trial court’s rulings, however, were affirmed by the appellate court.

 Novak Law Case Nos. 1747/1796: This coverage dispute involved the question of whether a duty to defend was owed to a general contractor in an underlying lawsuit alleging property damage from water leaks and other unsafe conditions in a multi-unit, mixed-use residential/commercial condominium building. Novak Law obtained summary judgment on a number of issues including application of the known loss doctrine because the insured was aware of facts sufficient to establish there was a substantial probability of a loss at the time the application was submitted.

 Novak Law Case No. 1780/1785: Novak Law successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of their client finding that there was no duty to defend because the Policy’s Prior Work Exclusion barred coverage and because the work performed was at a location that was not considered part of the insured premises and thus was not within the classification limitation.

Novak Law Case No. 1792: In this case, Novak Law obtained summary judgment due to the application of the assault and battery exclusion which barred coverage for damages arising from the death of a patron following a bar fight at the insured’s premises.

Novak Law Case No. 1797:  This insurance coverage dispute involved the question of whether a co-insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify a general contractor as an additional insured.  In this matter, the underlying action was filed by the injured employee of its subcontractor against the general contractor, among others.  Novak Law’s client defended its named insured, the general contractor, in the underlying action pursuant to a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action against the co-insurer.  The trial court held that the co-insurer owed a duty to defend the general contractor as an additional insured.  It further ruled that the co-insurer’s policy provided primary coverage, while Novak Law’s client’s policy provided excess coverage to the general contractor.  The “priority of coverage” ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Novak Law Case No. 1839: In this construction defect/duty to defend case, Novak Law successfully argued that the economic loss doctrine controlled and that the underlying claim did not allege property damage within the meaning of a CGL policy. In addition, Exclusions j5 and j6 were also found to apply which bar coverage for loss due to faulty workmanship and for the cost to repair or replace the insured’s own work.

Novak Law Case No. 1940: Novak Law obtained a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by the insured after a judgment was entered against it for breach of contract. Novak Law’s motion to dismiss successfully argued that a breach of contract claim is not covered under a commercial general liability policy and that the insurer’s failure to defend the underlying claim did not result in a finding of estoppel against the insurer under the circumstances.

Novak Law Case No. 1963: Novak Law successfully represented a company in a reinsurance dispute involving the question of whether an excess of loss treaty was a pure clash cover or if it also covered a loss involving multiple occurrences arising out of one event under a single policy.

 

CRAZY SUCCESSFUL IN INSURANCE LAW.