Cases

A court of the Eastern District of Texas adopted in part a magistrate’s recommendation to deny an insured’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that enforced an Indiana choice-of-law provision when interpreting a “Texas – Regulatory Coverage Endorsement,” finding that the endorsement unambiguously included defense expenses for regulatory claims within the meaning of “loss,” but that an errant apostrophe within the term “insured’s” indicated that the policy’s limit of liability was either unintelligible or ambiguous and therefore required that the report be returned to the magistrate for further consideration and briefing.