Two insurers may not have to pay nearly $300,000 spent defending two Illinois state's attorneys in the "Englewood Four" malicious prosecution case, but the question of whether they must pay their share of a $30 million settlement remains, a federal judge held Monday.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
(California Insurance Code Section 5335(b) Bars Defense
of Insured for Action Brought by the Attorney General s Office
for Violation of California s Unfair Competition Law and False
advertising Law)
(July 2021) - In
Adir International,
LLC
v. Starr Indem. and Liability Co., 994 F.3d 1032
(April 15, 2021) ( AG lawsuit ), the United States Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court s
dismissal of a declaratory relief action filed by Adir
International, LLC ( Adir ) against Starr Indemnity and
Liability Company ( Starr ) arguing that a duty to defend
was owed under Starr s directors and officers policy for an
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that a California retailer must pay its own legal fees in a state consumer protection lawsuit brought against it by the California Attorney General, despite its insurer’s agreement to cover defense fees for false advertising or unfair competition claims in the insured’s policy. The retailer was also forced to pay its insurer Two Million Dollars as reimbursement for fees already expended by the insurer as the case was pending.
The three-judge panel in Adir International, LLC v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co. (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021), based their decision on California Insurance Code § 533.5, which provides that insurance policies may not cover any fines or fees arising from criminal actions or lawsuits brought by state or local authorities pursuant to California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. The law also prohibits insurers from defending or indemnifyin
ADVERTISEMENT
Calif. Stores Not Owed Defense Of Fraud Suit, 9th Circ. Says
Law360 (April 15, 2021, 6:43 PM EDT) The Ninth Circuit affirmed Thursday that a California law barring insurance for unfair competition actions relieved a Starr Insurance Cos. unit from having to defend the operator of the Curacao retail chain against the state s claims that it engaged in predatory business tactics, spurning the retailer s argument that the law is unconstitutional.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the appellate court left intact a California federal court s ruling that Starr Indemnity and Liability Co. does not have to defend Curacao operator Adir International LLC and its CEO, Ron Azarkman, in the underlying action filed in 2017 by then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra..
In Short
The Situation: Corporate policyholders, and
their individual officers and directors, often incur significant
fees and costs when forced to respond to government subpoenas that
may require extensive document productions and testimony.When
responding to subpoenas, policyholders too often overlook whether
their directors and officers ( D&O )
coverage may cover costs associated with those responses.
The Result: Many courts have held that a
subpoena constitutes a claim as defined in most
traditional D&O insurance policies, and similarly have held
that the subpoena need not allege an express wrongful
act to trigger coverage for defense costs.
Looking Ahead: Policyholders should carefully