In Phillips v. Parmelee, No. 2011AP2608, 2013 WL 6818145 (Wis. Dec. 27, 2013) (applying Wisconsin law), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment and held that pollution exclusions barred any duty to defend allegations that the policyholder’s transportation of oil and gas drilling wastes caused pollution.

In a recent case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of commercial general liability and excess insurers, holding that pollution exclusions barred coverage for pollution liability arising from gas and oil exploration and production activities.

In a recent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that a six-year statute of limitations barred a policyholder’s breach of contract claim on the duty to defend because the policyholder filed suit more than six years after the insurers denied coverage for a potentially responsible party issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

In a recent case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine applied Maine law and held that the "business pursuits" exclusion in a homeowners policy excluded a defense obligation for a lawsuit alleging that the insured made defamatory statements in a trade publication that he edited, published, and owned.

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal, interpreting California law, affirmed a stay granted on the ground of forum non conveniens that was sought by liability insurers in a brain-injury coverage case filed by the NFL.