Insurance Law Alert

October 2018

In This Issue
Second Circuit Vacates District Court Rulings On Reinsurance Limits And
Follow The Settlements
The Second Circuit ruled that reinsurance certificates were expense-supplemental, requiring
the reinsurer to pay expenses in addition to the stated limit of liability and that the reinsurer
was not bound by the cedent’s reasonable good faith settlement decisions pursuant to thefollow the settlements doctrine. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2018 WL
4568306 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2018). (Click here for full article)“Renownedin the market as
accomplished trial
lawyers and coverageexperts who offer quality
representation to clients in
the insurance industry.”– Chambers USA
2018

Second Circuit Rules That Insurer Owes No Coverage For Collapse Arising
From Concrete Cracking
The Second Circuit ruled that a property insurer had no duty to cover losses arising inconnection with the cracking of concrete walls in the policyholders’ residence. Kim v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4847195 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Contractor’s Liability Policy Does Not
Cover Property Damage Caused By Subcontractor’s Faulty WorkThe Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor’s liability policy does not cover claims
arising out of a subcontractor’s faulty work because such claims did not arise from a covered“occurrence.” Ohio Northern Univ. v. Charles Construction Svs., 2018 WL 4926159 (Oct. 9,2018). (Click here for full article)

Florida Court Rules That Insurer Has No Duty To Defend Data Breach
ClaimsA Florida federal district court ruled that a general liability insurer has no duty to defend data
breach claims, finding that coverage for breach of privacy allegations applied only where thepublication of personal information was done by the policyholder, and did not extend to acts
undertaken by hackers. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Rosen Millennium, Inc., 2018 WL
4732718 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018). (Click here for full article)

California Court Rules That Insurer Breached Duty To Defend EmailScanning Claims Against YahooA California federal district court ruled that an insurer breached its duty to defend class action
suits against Yahoo alleging inappropriate scanning of user emails. Yahoo! Inc. v. National
Union Fire Ins. Co of Pittsburgh, PA, 2018 WL 4962033 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018).
(Click here for full article)



Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

1

Illinois Court Rules That Ten Underlying Suits Against Policyholder
Constitute A Single Claim
An Illinois federal district court ruled that ten underlying suits against a policyholder
constitute a single “claim” under a professional liability policy, subject to a single per-claim
policy limit. Lloyd’s Syndicate 3624 v. Biological Res. Ctr. of Illinois, LLC, 2018 WL 4489589(N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Ninth Circuit Rules That Policyholder Forfeits Coverage With Breach Of
No Voluntary Payments Provision
The Ninth Circuit ruled that a policyholder relinquished its right to coverage under a liability
policy by settling claims without the insurer’s consent. Amco Ins. Co. v. Morfe, 2018 WL
4520952 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018). (Click here for full article)

Eleventh Circuit Rules That Force-Placed Insurance Claims Are Barred By
Filed-Rate Doctrine
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed class action suits against mortgage service providers relating toforce-placed insurance, finding that the claims were barred by the filed-rate doctrine. Patel v.
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2018 WL 4559091 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018). (Click here forfull article)

Third Circuit Rules That District Court Properly Denied Fee Award In Bad
Faith Action
The Third Circuit ruled that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an attorneys’
fee award in a policyholder’s successful statutory bad faith action where the fee petition was
severely deficient. Clemens v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 903 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2018).
(Click here for full article)

Simpson Thacher News Alert
Click here for news relating to Simpson Thacher’s insurance-related honors.

2

Reinsurance Alert:

York cases involving policy language that
expressly provides that reinsurance limits
were “subject to” the amount of liability.
Here, the court noted that pursuant to thefollow the form clause, Clearwater’s liability isdependent on Utica’s underlying liability.

In a dispute relating to the scope of coverage
under several facultative reinsurance policies
issued by Clearwater Insurance Company, a
New York district court previously made two
significant rulings: (1) Clearwater need not
pay expenses beyond the limits of liability
in the reinsurance contracts (see November
2014 Alert); and (2) Clearwater is obligatedto indemnify Utica’s reasonable and goodfaith settlement of the underlying asbestos
claims pursuant to the follow the settlements
doctrine (see February 2016 Alert). Lastmonth, the Second Circuit vacated thoserulings. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. ClearwaterIns. Co., 2018 WL 4568306 (2d Cir. Sept.
25, 2018).

Addressing the follow the settlements issue,
the Second Circuit ruled that Clearwater
was not bound by Utica’s reasonable, goodfaith settlement decisions. The court heldthat neither the reinsurance certificates nor
certain contracts through which Clearwaterparticipated as part of a pool of reinsurers
imposed a follow the settlements obligation.
The court held that a provision statingthat the certificate “shall follow the ceding
Company’s liability in accordance with theterms and conditions of the policy reinsured
hereunder except with respect to those terms
and/or conditions as may be inconsistent”
was a follow form clause and did not impose
a follow the settlements obligation. Further,
the court refused to find such an obligation
implicit in all reinsurance contracts as amatter of law. The court therefore concluded
that Clearwater’s indemnity obligations must
be based on Utica’s proven liability under its
umbrella policies. The court remanded thematter for such a determination.

Second Circuit Vacates District
Court Rulings On Reinsurance
Limits And Follow The Settlements

Utica issued primary and umbrella policies
to Goulds Pumps, a defendant in thousandsof asbestos-related suits. Utica and Goulds
reached a settlement regarding Utica’s
liability under certain policies that lacked
aggregate limits. Thereafter, Utica sued
Clearwater, seeking indemnification pursuant
to various reinsurance contracts. The parties
disputed whether the liability limits in
the reinsurance certificates were inclusiveof expenses and whether Clearwater was
obligated to “follow the settlements” withrespect to Utica’s reasonable and good faithagreements with Goulds.
The Second Circuit ruled that the reinsurance
certificates were expense-supplemental andthus required Clearwater to reimburse Utica
for expenses in addition to the stated limitsof liability. The court noted that there is nopresumption under New York law that a
per-occurrence liability limit in a reinsurance
contract caps all obligations of the reinsurer.
See Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v.
Century Indem. Co., 30 N.Y.3d 508 (2017)(discussed in our December 2017 Alert).
Here, the reinsurance certificates expressly“followed the form” of the underlying liability,
and the court stated that Utica’s umbrella
policies “plainly require Utica to reimburse
Goulds for ‘expenses . . . in addition to theapplicable limit of liability.’” The court
therefore concluded that Clearwater’s
certificates must likewise be expensesupplemental. The court distinguished New

This month, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court declined to review an appellate court
decision similarly holding that facultativereinsurance certificates provide coverage for
defense expenses in excess of the liability
cap set forth in the reinsurance agreement.
Century Indem. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.,
No. 68 EM 2018 (Pa. Oct. 15, 2018). There,
the “Reinsurance Accepted’ provision statedthat “the liability of the Reinsurer . . . shallfollow that of the Company and except asotherwise specifically provided herein, shallbe subject in all respects to all the terms
and conditions of the Company’s policy.”
OneBeacon had argued that this language
provided a cap for both indemnity and3defense costs under Bellefonte Reinsurance
Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 910(2d Cir. 1990). The appellate court disagreed,
explaining that the Bellefonte provisionstated that the reinsurance was “subject to theterms, conditions and amount of liability set
forth herein,” whereas here, the “subject to”
clause referred only to the general conditions,
not the reinsurance limit. The court also
noted that its ruling was supported by thefollow form provision because the underlying
policies provided coverage for expenses
in addition to limits. Century Indem. Co.
v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 173 A.3d 784 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 2017) (discussed in our November
2017 Alert).

In the ensuing litigation, a Connecticut
district court ruled in State Farm’s favor. The
Second Circuit affirmed.
The Second Circuit ruled that the provisionapplied because any collapse would be caused“directly and immediately” from the concrete
cracks. The court rejected the homeowners’
assertion that the exclusion did not apply
because a collapse would be gradual rather
than immediate, noting that the exclusion
expressly applies “regardless of whether theloss occurs suddenly or gradually.” The court
also rejected the homeowners’ contention
that the exclusion was ambiguous because it
referred both to “immediate” and “gradually.”
The court explained that in this context, theonly reasonable interpretation of “immediate”
is the absence of any other intervening cause.
The court also held that there was no coverage
under an ensuing loss provision, which
provides coverage “for any resulting loss from[the listed exclusions] unless the resulting loss
is itself is a Loss Not Insured by this Section.”
The court held that even assuming that acollapse was a resulting loss under the policy,
it was excluded as a “Loss Not Insured by thisSection” for the reasons set forth above.

Construction
Defect Alerts:

Second Circuit Rules That Insurer
Owes No Coverage For Collapse
Arising From Concrete Cracking
The Second Circuit ruled that a property
insurer had no duty to cover losses arising inconnection with the cracking of concrete wallsin the policyholders’ residence. Kim v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4847195(2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2018).
The homeowners sought coverage under theirproperty policy for losses stemming fromcracks in the concrete foundation of theirhome. Engineers who inspected the home
opined that the cracks would lead to further
damage and eventually result in collapse.
State Farm denied coverage on several bases,
including a provision that excludes coveragefor damage “directly and immediately” causedby “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or
expansion of pavements, patios, foundation,walls, floors, roofs or ceilings.”

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That
Contractor’s Liability Policy Does
Not Cover Property Damage Caused
By Subcontractor’s Faulty WorkThe Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a generalcontractor’s liability policy does not coverclaims arising out of subcontractor’s faulty
work because such claims did not arise from acovered “occurrence.” Ohio Northern Univ. v.
Charles Construction Svs., 2018 WL 4926159(Oct. 9, 2018).
A general contractor was sued after it was
discovered that defective work performed bya subcontractor resulted in extensive water
damage. The contractor sought coverage
from its general liability insurer, which
defended under a reservation of rights. The
insurer later filed suit seeking a declarationthat defective workmanship claims were
not claims for property damage “caused byan occurrence.” The trial court ruled in theinsurer’s favor, citing Westfield Ins. Co. v.
Custom Agri Sys., Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 476(2012), which held that damage caused by acontractor’s own faulty workmanship does
not give rise to a covered occurrence. An
4intermediate appellate court reversed, findingthat Agri applied only to claims involving thecontractor’s own work and that the policy
was ambiguous as to whether it encompassed
claims based on a subcontractor’s faulty work.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holdingthat Agri applied with equal force to claims
based on a subcontractor’s workmanship.
The court further held that even though thedamage was discovered after the construction
work was completed, coverage was notrestored by a Products Completed Operations
Hazard exception or a subcontractor
exception to a “Your Work” exclusion because
there was no covered occurrence in the firstplace. The court noted that courts in otherjurisdictions have deemed subcontractor
claims to be covered by a completed
operations or subcontractor exception, butemphasized that its decision was based
on “the plain and ordinary meaning of thelanguage used in the CGL policy” rather than“any trend in the law.”

Data Breach Alerts:

The personal injury coverage included“[m]aking known to any person ororganization covered material that violatesa person’s right of privacy.” The parties did
not dispute that the credit card information
released in the data breach constituted
covered personal information. However,St. Paul’s argued that the “making known”
requirement was not met. The court agreed,finding no coverage because the alleged
privacy violation did not result from
Millennium’s own conduct, but rather fromthe actions of third-party hackers. The court
relied on Innovak Int’l, Inc. v. Hanover Ins.
Co., 280 F. Supp.3d 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2017)(discussed in our December 2017 Alert), in
which the court held that coverage under apersonal injury provision required the insured
to be the publisher of the private information.
As discussed in our March 2014 Alert, a New
York court reached the same conclusion in
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Sony Corp.
of America, No. 651982/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
New York City. Feb. 21, 2014), holding thata similar personal injury policy provision
did not encompass hacking claims where thepublication was committed by hackers rather
than the insured itself.

Florida Court Rules That Insurer
Has No Duty To Defend Data
Breach Claims

California Court Rules That Insurer
Breached Duty To Defend EmailScanning Claims Against Yahoo

A Florida federal district court ruled that ageneral liability insurer has no duty to defend
data breach claims, finding that coverage forbreach of privacy allegations applied only
where the publication of personal information
was done by the policyholder itself, and did
not extend to acts undertaken by third-party
hackers. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.
Rosen Millennium, Inc., 2018 WL 4732718(M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018).

A California federal district court ruledthat an insurer breached its duty to defendclass action suits against Yahoo alleging
inappropriate scanning of user emails.
Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co of
Pittsburgh, PA, 2018 WL 4962033 (N.D. Cal.
Oct. 12, 2018).

A hotel hired Millennium to provide data
security services. When the hotel learned ofa potential credit card breach, it informed
Millennium that it believed that Millennium’s
negligence caused the breach. Millennium
submitted a notice of claim to St. Paul, whichthen sought a declaration that it had no duty
to defend any claim made by the hotel against
Millennium. The court granted in part St.
Paul’s summary judgment motion, findingthat the insurer had no duty to defend under
the policy’s “personal injury” provision.

Three class action suits were filed against
Yahoo relating to its alleged practice of
scanning the content of emails sent to andfrom its users. The complaints alleged thatYahoo intercepted and reviewed emails
without users’ knowledge. Yahoo tendered
defense of the suits to National Union,
which initially denied coverage then agreed
approximately two years later to defend oneof the suits under a reservation of rights.
By that time, the other two suits had been
dismissed. Yahoo, having spent more than $4
million to defend and settle, sued National
Union for breach of contract and bad faith.
Ruling on the parties’ cross-motions forsummary judgment, the court issued thefollowing rulings:
5National Union Breached Its Duty to Defend

The court held that the underlying allegations
gave rise to a duty to defend under thepolicy’s “personal injury” provision, which
covers “[o]ral or written publication, in any
manner, of material that violates a person’s
right of privacy.” Although the suits did not
specifically allege publication of the emails toa third-party, the court deemed it “reasonably
inferable” that the material was revealed tothird parties based on an allegation in one
underlying complaint that Yahoo profited
financially from reading the emails. Althougha second underlying complaint did notinclude similar allegations, the court statedthat “National Union offers no reason why
the pleading could not have been amended toinclude them.”
The court further held that National Union’s
duty to defend was not negated by a criminal
acts exclusion, notwithstanding that twoof the underlying complaints alleged only
violations of a state penal code relating to
privacy violations. The court reasoned that“the form of the claim is not controlling” andthat a duty to defend arose in light of thepossibility of a claim for civil damages basedon allegations of financial profit. With respect
to the third underlying suit (which National
Union ultimately agreed to defend), thecourt held that the insurer breached its duty
by failing to provide an immediate defense
upon tender.
A Breach of the Duty to Defend Does Not
Prevent National Union From Enforcing Its
Contractual Rights

The court ruled that the breach of the duty to
defend did not eviscerate National Union’s
right to enforce a Deductible CoverageEndorsement, under which Yahoo agreed
to reimburse National Union for certain
expenses and payments. The court reasoned
that prohibiting National Union from seeking
reimbursement would enrich Yahoo beyond
what it contracted for in the insurance policy.
National Union’s Duty to Indemnity Is Limited

The court also ruled that National Union
had no indemnity obligation with respect
to the two dismissed class actions because
Yahoo made no payments in connection withthe suits. As to the third class action, thecourt concluded that a portion of Yahoo’s
settlement payment constituted covered“damages” under the policy. In particular, thecourt held that Yahoo’s payment of attorneys’
fees to underlying plaintiffs’ counsel fellwithin the scope of “damages,” because suchstatutory fees were “sums that the insured
became legally obligated to pay as damages”
because of “personal injury.” However, thecourt held that “service award” payments
to class representatives were not insured“damages” because they were “recompense
for the inconveniences of litigation.”Issues of Fact Exist as to Whether National
Union Breached the Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing

Yahoo argued that National Union acted
in bad faith by denying coverage basedon exclusions that had been deleted
from operative policies and by relying on
incomplete copies of policies. Although thosefacts were undisputed, the court concluded
that a reasonable jury could deem suchactions mistaken decisions rather than bad
faith failure to investigate.

Coverage Alert:

Illinois Court Rules That Ten
Underlying Suits Against
Policyholder Constitute A Single
Claim
An Illinois federal district court ruled thatten underlying suits against a policyholder
constitute a single “claim” under aprofessional liability policy, subject to a single
per-claim policy limit. Lloyd’s Syndicate 3624
v. Biological Res. Ctr. of Illinois, LLC, 2018
WL 4489589 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2018).
Biological Resource Center of Illinois(“BRCI”), a non-transplant anatomical
donation business, was sued in ten actions
alleging the mishandling and/or sale of6human remains. Hiscox, BRCI’s professional
liability insurer, brought a declaratory
judgment action seeking a ruling that thepolicy’s $2 million per-claim limit applied to
all underlying cases. The court agreed andgranted Hiscox’s motion for partial judgmenton the pleadings.
The policy provided that “[a]ll claims
based upon or arising out of any and allcontinuous, repeated or related Wrongful
Acts or Accidents . . . shall be considered asingle Claim.” The court agreed with Hiscoxthat all claims in the underlying suits shouldbe treated as a single claim because they all
originated from BRCI’s allegedly negligent
acts and breaches of duty. In so ruling, thecourt reasoned that “related” covered abroad range of connections, both causal andlogical. Thus, although the underlying suits
differed in their precise wording, they wererelated in their common allegations as tofalse representations and breaches of duty.
The court rejected BRCI’s assertion that theunderlying suits could not be a single claim
because each complaint involved different
anatomical donations, operative documents,
and circumstances. Additionally, the court
held that different theories of liability in theunderlying suits did not negate “relatedness,”stating that “BRCI cites no authority tosupport the notion that underlying complaints
must assert the exact same legal theories of
liability to be considered a single ‘Claim.’”Settlement Alert:
Ninth Circuit Rules That
Policyholder Forfeits CoverageWith Breach Of No Voluntary
Payments Provision

The Ninth Circuit ruled that a policyholder
relinquished its right to coverage under aliability policy by settling claims without theinsurer’s consent. Amco Ins. Co. v. Morfe,
2018 WL 4520952 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018).
The policyholder sought defense andindemnity from his insurer for tort claims
asserted against him. After tender of the
defense but before the insurer rendered acoverage decision, the policyholder reached asettlement without the insurer’s consent. The
insurer sought a declaration that it had no
duty to defend or indemnify the claims.

A California federal district court granted theinsurer’s partial summary judgment motion,and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the policyholder’s
breach of the policy’s no voluntary payments
provision resulted in a forfeiture of coverage.
The policyholder argued that an exception
to the no voluntary payments provision
was warranted because: (1) the insurer
abandoned the policyholder by failing to
respond to the tender of defense; (2) the
policyholder executed the settlement underduress; and (3) the insurer breached its duty
to provide an immediate defense. The court
rejected these assertions, finding that an
abandonment exception applies only when
an insurer denies coverage altogether andrefuses to provide a defense. The court also
noted a lack of factual support for the duress
argument. Finally, the court held that theinsurer’s failure to defend for twelve weeks
following the policyholder’s tender did notconstitute a breach of the duty to provide an
immediate defense.

Filed Rate Alert:

Eleventh Circuit Rules That ForcePlaced Insurance Claims Are
Barred By Filed-Rate Doctrine
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed class action
suits against mortgage service providers
relating to force-placed insurance, findingthat the claims were barred by the filed-rate
doctrine. Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing,
LLC, 2018 WL 4559091 (11th Cir. Sept.
24, 2018).
Homeowners alleged that their service
providers breached loan contracts and theimplied covenant of good faith and fairdealing by charging inflated premiums forforce-placed insurance. In particular, thecomplaints alleged that the mortgage service
companies received kickbacks from theinsurance company that issued the forceplaced insurance after the homeowners’
prior insurance coverage had elapsed. A
Florida district court dismissed the actions
on the basis of the filed-rate doctrine,
which precludes judicial challenges torates that are filed with and approved by agovernment regulatory agency. The Eleventh
Circuit affirmed.
7

The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that theunderlying claims directly challenged thereasonableness of the premiums of the forceplaced insurance. Because the premiums
were based upon rates filed with Floridastate regulators, the court held that the filedrate doctrine squarely applied. The courtemphasized that allegations of a fraudulent
kickback scheme did not alter this result
because there is no fraud exception to the
filed-rate doctrine. The court cited Rothstein
v. Balboa Ins. Co., 794 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.
2015) (discussed in our September 2015
Alert), which similarly held that fraud claims
based on lender-placed insurance rates werebarred by the filed-rate doctrine, even where
the rates were imposed by an intermediaryrather than by the insurance companies thatobtained regulatory approval for those rates.
As discussed in our May 2011 and October2010 Alerts, other courts have similarly
enforced the filed-rate doctrine to bar
fraud claims against insurance companies,
although application of the doctrine varies
by jurisdiction.

Attorneys’ Fee
Alert:

Ruling on this matter of first impression,
the Third Circuit adopted the view endorsed
by other circuits – that where a fee-shifting
statute gives a district court discretion toaward attorneys’ fees, such discretion includes
the ability to deny a request altogether if an“outrageously excessive” amount is requested.
The Third Circuit upheld application ofthis standard because counsel failed tokeep contemporaneous time records, time
records were reconstructed after the fact, theentries submitted were vague and in someinstances, excessive, and the fee petition
failed to establish that the hourly rates werereasonable in light of prevailing community
rates.

Simpson Thacher
News Alert
The New York Law Journal named Simpson
Thacher its 2018 Litigation Department of
the Year in the category of Insurance. In
connection with the award, the publication
profiled the Firm’s numerous successes insignificant insurance and reinsurance mattersover the past year.

Third Circuit Rules That District
Court Properly Denied Fee Award
In Bad Faith Action
The Third Circuit ruled that a district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying an
attorneys’ fee award in a policyholder’ssuccessful statutory bad faith action where thefee petition was severely deficient. Clemens
v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 903 F.3d 396(3d Cir. 2018).
In an action against an automobile insurer,
a jury awarded the policyholder $100,000
in punitive damages under Pennsylvania’s
bad faith statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371.
Thereafter, the policyholder petitioned
for over $900,000 in attorneys’ fees. A
Pennsylvania district court, employing thelodestar approach, determined that thefee should be reduced by 87% and thendenied the petition in its entirety. The Third
Circuit affirmed.

8

Simpson Thacher has been an international leader in the practice of insurance and reinsurance law for
more than a quarter of a century. Our insurance litigation team practices worldwide.

Mary Beth Forshaw+1-212-455-2846
mforshaw@stblaw.com

Michael D. Kibler+1-310-407-7515
mkibler@stblaw.com

Craig S. Waldman+1-212-455-2881
cwaldman@stblaw.com

Andrew T. Frankel+1-212-455-3073
afrankel@stblaw.com

Michael J. Garvey+1-212-455-7358
mgarvey@stblaw.com

Susannah S. Geltman+1-212-455-2762
sgeltman@stblaw.com

Lynn K. Neuner+1-212-455-2696
lneuner@stblaw.com

Tyler B. Robinson+44-(0)20-7275-6118
trobinson@stblaw.com

Elisa Alcabes+1-212-455-3133
ealcabes@stblaw.com

Chet A. Kronenberg+1-310-407-7557
ckronenberg@stblaw.com

George S. Wang
+1-212-455-2228
gwang@stblaw.com

Summer Craig+1-212-455-3881
scraig@stblaw.com

Bryce L. Friedman+1-212-455-2235
bfriedman@stblaw.com

Deborah L. Stein+1-310-407-7525
dstein@stblaw.com

Daniel J. Stujenske+1-212-455-2419
dstujenske@stblaw.com

This edition of the
Insurance Law Alert was
prepared by Mary Beth Forshaw
mforshaw@stblaw.com /+1-212-4552846 and Bryce L. Friedman
bfriedman@stblaw.com /+1-212-4552235 with contributions
by Karen Cestarikcestari@stblaw.com.

The contents of this publication are for informational purposes only. Neither this publication nor the
lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts
or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an
attorney-client relationship. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP assumes no liability in connection withthe use of this publication. Please contact your relationship partner if we can be of assistance regardingthese important developments. The names and office locations of all of our partners, as well as ourrecent memoranda, can be obtained from our website, www.simpsonthacher.com.
Please click here to subscribe to the Insurance Law Alert.
9SimpsonThacherWorldwide

UNITED STATESEUROPE

SOUTH AMERICANew York
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017+1-212-455-2000

LondonCityPoint
One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9HUEngland+44-(0)20-7275-6500

São Paulo
Av. Presidente Juscelino
Kubitschek, 1455
São Paulo, SP 04543-011
Brazil+55-11-3546-1000

Houston
600 Travis Street, Suite 5400
Houston, TX 77002+1-713-821-5650
Los Angeles
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067+1-310-407-7500
Palo Alto
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304+1-650-251-5000
Washington, D.C.
900 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001+1-202-636-5500

ASIA

Beijing
3901 China World Tower
1 Jian Guo Men Wai Avenue
Beijing 100004
China+86-10-5965-2999
Hong Kong
ICBC Tower
3 Garden Road, Central
Hong Kong+852-2514-7600
Tokyo
Ark Hills Sengokuyama Mori Tower
9-10, Roppongi 1-Chome
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 106-0032
Japan+81-3-5562-6200

10