Insurers often rely on introductory phrases in exclusions, such as the phrase “relating to,” to expand the scope of exclusions beyond all reasonable bounds. The Eleventh Circuit recently reaffirmed that insurance exclusions — including those broadly drafted to exclude any claim “relating to” an excluded risk — should have meaningful limits and must be interpreted
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in L. Squared Industries, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Co. offers important guidance for policyholders navigating notice provisions under claims-made insurance policies—particularly when a policy imposes both a policy-period notice requirement and a separate “prompt notice” clause.
L. Squared Industries owned and operated gas stations in Florida and purchased a
Insurance policies often incorporate assignment clauses, which require policyholders to obtain their insurers’ written consent before assigning their insurance policies to others. For example, the ISO Common Policy Conditions Form, which is often used in commercial liability insurance policies, including package policies, precludes policy assignments under Section F: “Your rights and duties under this policy
Well-established law requires that an insured be made whole before recoveries benefit an insurer. When an insured’s losses exceed policy limits, any additional recovery made by the insured should inure to the benefit of the insured to offset losses above policy limits. Only after the insured is made whole is the insurer entitled to reimbursement.