In what it described as a case of first impression, the Northern District of California ruled that a professional liability policy that excluded the insured’s “assumption of liability obligations in a contract or agreement” did not extend to breach of warranty or false advertising claims arising out of a genetic data testing company’s marketing and sale of a personal genome service. See Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. 23andMe, Inc. (July 22, 2016) N.D. Cal. No. 14-cv-03286-BLF. What is noteworthy about this case is not so much the decision, but the fact that the insurer challenged coverage on this ground. While this issue apparently has never been decided in the context of a professional liability policy, both case law and custom and practice recognize that the same phrase used in a general liability policy applies only to liabilities “assumed,” i.e. created by, a contractual indemnity agreement.
Continue Reading “Assuming” the Obvious: Exclusion for “Assumption of Liability in a Contract” Does Not Apply to Breach of Professional Services
Exclusion
California Supreme Court To Decide Interplay Between Severability-of-Interests Clause And Intentional Acts Exclusion
By Farella on
Posted in Property Insurance
Can an insurance company deny coverage to a homeowner who did nothing intentional because another insured under the policy committed a crime or intentional tort? The California Supreme Court heard argument on this issue last week in Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, which involved allegations that a homeowner, Betty Schwartz, negligently failed to stop her adult son, David, who was Minkler’s baseball coach and lived with Betty, from sexually molesting Minkler when he was a teenager.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court To Decide Interplay Between Severability-of-Interests Clause And Intentional Acts Exclusion