The Delaware Commercial Court rejected repeated arguments by Underwriters that a stayed Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit (the “LASC Action”) did not require a defense of Counter-Claims in an Employment Arbitration, even though they asserted the same fact allegations as the LASC Action. The Delaware Court determined that it did not matter that the stay was issued to permit pursuit of the Employment Arbitration against a former employee. Nor was it important that a whistle blower label was affixed to the Arbitration Counter-Claim where it was based on the same facts as the LASC Action fiduciary abuse claim.

On remand, Underwriters allocation of defense fees while Legion asserts that no allocation is necessary as all fees of strategically defensive of the stayed LASC Action.

On remand the policy holders’ entitlement to coverage as well as fees, incurred under applicable New York law, for post-monetary settlement defense fees is at issue.

Traveler’s aggressive construction of its intellectual property exclusion to bar a defense for policyholders, where intellectual property claims were pursued, but not defended was rejected by the Ninth Circuit. It concluded that was to bar the mere pursuit of intellectual property claims in an Amended Complaint did not trigger application of Travelers intellectual property exclusion.

On remand, My Choice is pursing claims for

Applying New York law, the Second Court overruled and rejected the district court’s ruling rejecting its view that an insured has no “standing” to secure full defense fee reimbursement simply because the underlying action was settled with insurer funding. A policy holder that retains some exposure to the defense attorneys who litigated the case for its benefit is entitled to reimbursement for essential to secure relief even after a dismissal. A settlement remains essentially defensive work to secure the party’s respective rights to operate in the market place where trademark issues are in controversy.

On remand the policy holders’ entitlement to coverage as well as fees, incurred under applicable New York law, for post-monetary settlement defense fees is at issue.