<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Claims Journal &#187; Burke Coleman</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/author/bcoleman/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com</link>
	<description>Insurance news and resources for the claims industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:58:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Insurer’s Duty to Provide Independent Counsel in Alaska</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/05/01/228144.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 06:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke Coleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coverage defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurer duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=228144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This is part two of a three part series focusing on an insurer’s duty to provide independent counsel in Alaska, California and Illinois. Read Part 1. Alaska imposes a broad duty on insurers to provide independent counsel for the insured &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/05/01/228144.htm">The Insurer’s Duty to Provide Independent Counsel in Alaska</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Insurer’s Duty to Provide Independent Counsel in California</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/04/03/226229.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:10:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cumis counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent counsel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=226229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This is part one of a three part series focusing on an insurer’s duty to provide independent counsel in Alaska, California and Illinois. Under liability insurance policies, an insurer has a duty to indemnify the insured for loss as well &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/04/03/226229.htm">The Insurer’s Duty to Provide Independent Counsel in California</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Determines Priority of Coverage Where Employer is Vicariously Liable</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/03/06/224415.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court determines coverage prioity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer vicariously liable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GuideOne v. Utica National Insurance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=224415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A California appellate court recently clarified the priority of coverage where multiple insurers are implicated for the acts of a negligent employee. In GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company v. Utica National Insurance Group, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 148, the court held &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2013/03/06/224415.htm">Court Determines Priority of Coverage Where Employer is Vicariously Liable</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courts Continue to Struggle with Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/idea-exchange/2013/02/18/223084.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Idea Exchange]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=223084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The previous year saw a number of important cases interpreting and developing the application of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine in the context of insurance claims. Insurers and insureds consistently assert and challenge these protections in coverage disputes, &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/idea-exchange/2013/02/18/223084.htm">Courts Continue to Struggle with Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agent Liability for Insurer Insolvency</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/02/06/222439.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agent liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Errors and Omissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency exclusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurer insolvency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=222439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Agents’ errors and omissions (E&#38;O) policies provide protection for agents for certain negligent acts committed in their professional capacity but may exclude coverage for liability related to an insurer’s insolvency. These “insolvency exclusions” typically exclude coverage if the agent places &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/02/06/222439.htm">Agent Liability for Insurer Insolvency</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>South Dakota Court Rules Against &#8216;Owned-But-Not-Insured&#8217; Exclusion</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2013/01/03/220153.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midwest News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[owned but not insured exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[south dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uninsured motorists policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wheeler v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co of Nebraska]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=220153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>With the South Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in Wheeler v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Neb., 2012 S.D. 83, the state joined a number of other states in invalidating “owned-but-not-insured” exclusions in uninsured motorist policies. The court held that South &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2013/01/03/220153.htm">South Dakota Court Rules Against &#8216;Owned-But-Not-Insured&#8217; Exclusion</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurer Must Show Prejudice to Enforce Proof of Loss Provision in California</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2012/12/05/218552.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke Coleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Henderson v. Farmers Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof of loss provision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=218552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A California court of appeals recently determined that a proof of loss condition in a first party insurance policy is subject to the notice-prejudice rule. According to the decision, an insurer cannot avoid its coverage obligations due to a policyholder’s &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2012/12/05/218552.htm">Insurer Must Show Prejudice to Enforce Proof of Loss Provision in California</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Supreme Court Determines Defective Construction is Not Covered by CGL Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/11/07/216951.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial general liability policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ohio Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westfield Insurance Company v. Custom AgriSystems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=216951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that defective construction is not an “occurrence” covered under a commercial general liability policy. The decision clarifies an issue on which lower appellate courts had been split, but the court’s broad ruling was &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/11/07/216951.htm">Ohio Supreme Court Determines Defective Construction is Not Covered by CGL Policy</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Cases Explore Scope of Auto Use Exclusion</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/idea-exchange/2012/10/15/217055.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Idea Exchange]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=217055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A number of recent cases provide insight into the application and interpretation of auto use (or motor vehicle) exclusions generally present in a homeowner&#8217;s policy. Auto use exclusions typically preclude coverage for injury or damage arising out of the ownership, &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/idea-exchange/2012/10/15/217055.htm">Recent Cases Explore Scope of Auto Use Exclusion</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circuit Courts Affirm Strict Construction of Flood Insurance Policies</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/10/03/214620.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke Coleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Demotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal insurance policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flood insurance policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NFIP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strict adherence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=214620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Two recent circuit court decisions affirmed that national flood insurance policies are to be strictly construed and are not subject to the flexible standards applied to private insurance policies. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created because the private &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/10/03/214620.htm">Circuit Courts Affirm Strict Construction of Flood Insurance Policies</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Natural Gas Driller and Insurer Dispute Coverage for Fracking Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/09/05/213109.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking coverage dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc. v. ACE American Ins. Co.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Drilling Co.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=213109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>One of the first lawsuits implicating insurance coverage for a fracking-related claim is under way in Ohio. Warren Drilling Co., Inc. v. ACE American Ins. Co., No. 2:12-cv-425 (S.D. Ohio 2012) will be the first case to determine how insurance &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/09/05/213109.htm">Natural Gas Driller and Insurer Dispute Coverage for Fracking Claim</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Court Finds Ambiguity in Exception for Explosions</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/08/01/211147.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambiguity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[explosions exception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York appellate court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy interpretation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=211147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A New York appellate court recently issued one of the more interesting policy interpretation decisions, highlighting the importance of clearly drafted policies and exhibiting the well-settled principle that any ambiguity in a policy should be construed liberally in favor of &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/08/01/211147.htm">New York Court Finds Ambiguity in Exception for Explosions</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Georgia Court Allows Insured to Recover Cost of Repair and Loss in Value</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/07/06/209643.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke Coleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diminution in value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repair cost recoverable]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=209643</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Georgia Supreme Court recently faced the question of whether an insured could be compensated by its insurer for both the cost of repair and the diminution in value of damaged real property. The issue was one of first impression &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/07/06/209643.htm">Georgia Court Allows Insured to Recover Cost of Repair and Loss in Value</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>Third Circuit Interprets &#8216;Arising Out Of&#8217; Clause for UM Benefits Broadly</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/06/06/208039.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Allstate v. Squires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arising out of clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uninsured motorist coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vehicle liability policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=208039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>For uninsured motorist coverage to apply, vehicle liability policies provide that the injury to the insured must be “caused by accident and arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured auto.” The “arising out of” clause defines &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/06/06/208039.htm">Third Circuit Interprets &#8216;Arising Out Of&#8217; Clause for UM Benefits Broadly</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York&#8217;s Approach to Apportioning Defense Costs Among Multiple Insurers</title>
		<link>http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/05/03/206158.htm</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Burke Coleman</dc:creator>				<category><![CDATA[Burke's Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos-related claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty to defend]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint and several]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Travelers v. Alfa Laval]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.claimsjournal.com/?p=206158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Insurers in New York have an “exceedingly broad” duty to defend their policyholders against any claim that is potentially covered by the policy. Regal Constr. Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 930 N.E.2d 259, 261 (N.Y. &#8230;</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/burkes-law/2012/05/03/206158.htm">New York&#8217;s Approach to Apportioning Defense Costs Among Multiple Insurers</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.claimsjournal.com">Claims Journal</a>.</p>]]></description>
				</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using memcached
Object Caching 999/1192 objects using memcached

 Served from: www.claimsjournal.com @ 2013-05-24 23:46:10 by W3 Total Cache -->