Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Insurer’s Duty to Defend in Malpractice Coverage Case
October 15, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that insurers cannot easily escape their duty to defend when a malpractice complaint raises allegations potentially covered by professional liability insurance. The court’s decision underscores how narrowly exclusions must be applied when determining an insurer’s defense obligations toward attorneys and law firms. Court Rejects Overbroad Use of Policy Exclusions In the dispute, an insurer sought to avoid defending an attorney accused of mishandling a client matter, citing conflict-of-interest and misappropriation exclusions. The appellate panel disagreed, holding that such exclusions did not clearly eliminate coverage for the allegations presented. The judges emphasized that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, meaning insurers must step in as long as any claim in the complaint may fall within coverage. This decision aligns with the Eleventh Circuit’s consistent stance favoring insureds in ambiguous defense scenarios. Implications for Professional Liability Coverage Legal analysts note that the ruling strengthens the protection afforded to lawyers under professional liability policies, particularly in jurisdictions governed by Eleventh Circuit precedent. The case signals to insurers that attempts to rely on vaguely worded exclusions may fail where the underlying facts could still support coverage. “This opinion is another reminder that insurers carry a heavy burden when attempting to disclaim their defense obligations,” one coverage attorney explained. “Courts are increasingly unwilling to let carriers off the hook based on speculative exclusions.” Broader Context for Insurers and Law Firms The Eleventh Circuit’s decision follows a growing national trend requiring insurers to honor defense commitments when policy wording is unclear. For law firms, the ruling highlights the importance of reviewing policy terms, especially exclusions tied to conflicts or client fund handling. Industry observers predict that this case will be cited in upcoming disputes involving the scope of an insurer’s duty to defend under professional liability and errors-and-omissions policies. For a full summary of recent federal coverage cases, visit the Insurance Law Center at Cornell Law School. FAQs: Eleventh Circuit Insurer Duty to Defend Ruling 2025 What did the Eleventh Circuit decide about insurer obligations? The court ruled that the insurer must defend the attorney and firm in a malpractice lawsuit because the claims could fall within the scope of the policy. Why did the insurer try to deny coverage? It cited exclusions related to conflict of interest and misappropriation, but the court found these did not clearly apply to all alleged conduct. How does this affect other law firms with similar policies? It sets a strong precedent favoring insureds by confirming that any doubt in coverage should be resolved in favor of providing a defense. Where can readers learn more about insurer defense duties? Readers can explore coverage principles at Cornell Law’s Insurance Law Center. Stay informed on the latest insurer defense rulings — subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for weekly coverage of federal appellate decisions. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Summary Judgment Motion Renewal Denied for Carrier
May 15, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Carrier summary judgment denial took center stage on May 15, 2025, as reported by JacobiJournal.com. A California appellate court recently held that an insurance carrier could not revive a previously denied summary judgment motion by simply re-filing it without significant new evidence or legal developments. The decision underscores judicial expectations for diligence and finality in motion practice, particularly within workers’ compensation and insurance litigation. Court Affirms Carrier Summary Judgment Denial as Procedurally Improper In the case, the insurance carrier initially sought summary judgment, asserting there was no triable issue of material fact regarding its liability in a complex coverage dispute. The trial court denied that motion. Later, in an attempt to revive the same arguments, the carrier refiled without presenting any new legal developments or factual changes. This effort resulted in a carrier summary judgment denial reaffirmed by the court, which ruled that such renewed motions are procedurally improper absent materially different circumstances. The appellate court agreed, emphasizing that courts must discourage repetitive filings that waste judicial resources and delay proceedings. “A motion denied cannot be repackaged and re-presented in hopes of a different outcome,” the opinion stated. Legal Standards and Implications California law allows for renewed motions for summary judgment only if the party shows: In this instance, none of those criteria were met—there were no new facts, no changes in the law, and no material developments to justify reconsideration. The decision reinforces that parties cannot bypass procedural finality merely because they disagree with an earlier ruling. Courts expect litigants to present their strongest case upfront, and attempts to repackage denied motions without substantive justification undermine the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process. Why This Matters This ruling has broad implications for insurance defense teams and third-party administrators. It highlights the importance of making the strongest case possible in the initial motion, knowing that courts frown upon do-overs. Carriers must approach summary judgment strategically—gathering solid evidence and anticipating potential defenses—because a second chance is not guaranteed. The decision also signals to plaintiffs’ counsel that courts will protect the integrity of the litigation process by rejecting duplicative tactics from insurers. Read Clark Hill article for a more detailed explanation about how local trial practices must not override state statutory rights on summary judgment FAQs: Understanding Carrier Summary Judgment Denial in California Courts What is a “carrier summary judgment denial”? A carrier summary judgment denial occurs when a court rejects an insurer’s motion, finding material facts remain in dispute. If refiled without new evidence or legal developments, appellate courts often refuse renewed motions—emphasizing finality and judicial efficiency. When can an insurer refile a denied summary judgment motion? An insurer may only file a renewed motion if there’s new or different evidence, a change in controlling law, or material developments since the initial decision. Simply re-submitting the same motion is considered duplicative and improper under California appellate standards. Why did the appellate court reject the insurer’s renewed motion? The appellate court held that refiling the motion without new supporting facts or legal changes flouts procedural norms and harms judicial efficiency. Courts expect litigants to present their best case the first time, not attempt a “second bite at the apple.” Can a carrier summary judgment denial affect settlement negotiations? Yes. A carrier summary judgment denial can influence settlement discussions by signaling that the court believes there are genuine disputes of material fact. This may encourage insurers and plaintiffs to consider alternative dispute resolution, as repeated summary judgment attempts are unlikely to succeed without new evidence or legal developments. Stay Ahead. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for expert coverage on insurance litigation, fraud developments, and carrier liability trends. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Court Overturns $1.84 Million Jury Award for Work Injury Claim
May 5, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — Work injury claim overturned: a California appellate court overturned a $1.84 million jury verdict awarded to a subcontractor’s employee who was injured on the job. The ruling highlights the limits of liability for general contractors in workplace injury lawsuits Worker Claimed Unsafe Conditions Caused Injury The injured worker sued the general contractor after falling through an unguarded skylight. He alleged that unsafe work conditions were to blame. A jury initially agreed and awarded him nearly $2 million in damages. Defense Challenged Liability However, the defense argued that the worker was not authorized to be in the area where he fell. They claimed he acted outside the scope of his job duties and ignored safety rules. The general contractor filed a motion for nonsuit, asserting they had no legal duty in this specific situation. Appellate Court Overturns Verdict On appeal, the court found that the general contractor did not owe the injured worker a duty of care. They emphasized that general contractors are not automatically responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees—especially when those employees violate safety protocols. Moreover, the court noted that the worker’s own employer bore primary responsibility for his supervision and safety. Broader Implications This decision may influence future workplace injury lawsuits in California. It clarifies that general contractors are not liable unless they directly control the worksite in a way that contributes to the injury. Therefore, injured workers must prove more than just unsafe conditions—they must show a clear duty of care. Source: Court Overturns $1.84 Million Jury Award for Work Injury Claim FAQs: About the California Work Injury Claim Ruling What happened in the California work injury claim case? A California appellate court overturned a $1.84 million jury award in a work injury claim, ruling the general contractor was not legally responsible. Why was the work injury claim verdict overturned? The court found that the general contractor did not owe a duty of care in this work injury claim because the injured worker violated safety protocols. What does this ruling mean for future work injury claim cases? Future work injury claim cases may require workers to prove that a general contractor had direct control over unsafe conditions that caused the injury. Get expert insights into legal trends, verdicts, and policy shifts affecting workers’ compensation law. Visit JacobiJournal.com for the latest updates and expert commentary on high-stakes litigation. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com: