(Plaintiff-Indemnitee Had No Standing as Third-Party Beneficiary to Sue Contractor’s Insurer Under CGL Policy’s Indemnitee Defense Provision Because Provision Bestowed Direct Benefits on Insurer and Insured-Contractor, and Merely Incidental Benefits on Plaintiff-Indemnitee, and Any Doubt That Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of Indemnity Defense Provision Would Be Resolved Against Plaintiff)

(Trial Court Correctly Denied Prejudgment Interest on Arbitration Award for Policy Limits in Ins. Code, § 11580.2, Subd. (F), Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Arbitration Because Total Amount of Damages Was Not Certain or Capable of Being Made Certain When Insured Made Offer to Compromise Under Section 998, Absent Evidence That Insurer Knew Damages Exceeded Policy Limits When It Rejected Offer)

(Required Filing of Complaint Under Seal in Qui Tam Action Under California False Claims Act and California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, Ins. Code, § 1871 Et Seq. Tolled Mandatory Requirement to Bring Action to Trial Within Five Years, Because Complaint Could Not Be Served While Case Was Under Seal and Moving For a Stay Was Not Necessary Because Stay of Prosecution Was Accomplished by Operation of Statute and Would Have Been an Idle Act)

(General Liability Insurer’s Contribution Lawsuit Against Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurer Fails as It Did Not Insure Same Risk)

(No Duty to Indemnify Water District Under Excess and Primary Policies for Consent Decree Entered Without Notice to Insurer Under No Voluntary Payments Clauses in Policies)

(Insurer Obligated to Defend Lawsuit Based on Frivolous Legal Theory, Notwithstanding That Indemnity Coverage Likely Not Provided by Homeowner’s Policy)

There have been a number of cases in the past few months addressing coverage issues arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article sets forth the main facts and holding in each of those cases. 

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently allowed a plaintiff to pursue claims for employer negligence while concurrently asserting claims for negligence against an employee in the same lawsuit, even though the employer has stipulated that it would be vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence.