Insurance Law Alert

March 2022

In This Issue
Delaware Supreme Court Rules That Related Claim Provision Bars
Coverage For Securities Class Action
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a Related Claim provision barred coverage for a laterfiled securities class action because the suit was based on facts and wrongful acts that were“the same as or related to” those alleged in a prior class action. First Solar, Inc. v. National
Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2022 WL 792158 (Del. Mar. 16, 2022). (Click here forfull article)“Skilled inhandling catastrophic
event liability issues andbad faith disputes, and acts
for an enviable client rosterof market-leading insurance
providers.”–Chambers USA
2021

Delaware Supreme Court Rules That Insurers Need Not Cover Costs Of
Defending Appraisal Suit
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision holding that insurers were
not obligated to pay the costs of defending an appraisal action because that suit did not seek
compensation “for a wrongful act.” Jarden LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2022 WL 618962(Del. Mar. 3, 2022). (Click here for full article)

Ohio Supreme Court Set To Rule On Whether Ransomware Attack
Triggers Insurance Coverage
The Ohio Supreme Court will address whether a policyholder is entitled to insurance coveragefor ransomware-related losses. EMOI Services LLS v. Owners Ins. Co., No. 2021-1529 (OhioMar. 1, 2022). (Click here for full article)

Russian War In Ukraine May Implicate War Exclusion In Cyber-Related
Coverage Claims
Business interruption losses resulting from cyberattacks perpetrated by Russian actors may
give rise to coverage litigation involving a war exclusion, among other issues. (Click here forfull article)

Affirming Dismissal Of Policyholder’s Suit, Fourth Circuit Rules That
Physical Loss Requires Material Destruction Or Harm To Covered
Property
The Fourth Circuit ruled that “physical loss or damage” is unambiguous and encompasses only
losses caused by “material destruction or material harm to the covered property.” Uncork andCreate LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 WL 662986 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022). (Click here forfull article)


Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

1

Minnesota Court Dismisses COVID-19 Coverage, Finding No Coverage
Under Business Interruption, Civil Authority Or Contamination
Provisions
A Minnesota district court dismissed a health care organization’s COVID-19-related coverage
suit, finding that neither government orders nor allegations of actual viral presence on property
sufficiently alleged “direct physical loss of or damage” to property, as required by the policy.
HealthPartners, Inc. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 597518 (D. Minn. Feb. 28, 2022).
(Click here for full article)

Dismissing Suit, Mississippi Court Rules That Endorsement Requires
Premises-Specific Exposure To Virus
A Mississippi district court dismissed restaurants’ breach of contract and bad faith suit, rulingthat a policy endorsement did not provide coverage for business losses allegedly caused by
the COVID-19 virus and related executive shutdown orders. University Management, Inc. v.
State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 805879 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2022). (Click here forfull article)

Policy Exclusions Do Not Relieve Insurer Of Duty To Defend BIPA Suit,
Says Illinois Court
An Illinois district court ruled that several policy exclusions were ambiguous and that aninsurer was therefore obligated to defend a suit alleging violations of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, 2022 WL 602534 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 1, 2022). (Click here for full article)

Sixth Circuit Rules That Filed-Rate Doctrine Precludes Suit Against
Insurer
Affirming a Kentucky district court decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the filed-rate doctrine
required dismissal of a policyholder’s claims against its workers’ compensation insurer.
Granite State Ins. Co. v. Star Mine Servs., Inc., 2022 WL 776461 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 2022).
(Click here for full article)

New York Governor Amends Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act
Last month, New York Governor Kathy Hochul eased certain requirements under theComprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, which requires litigation defendants to sharedetailed insurance coverage information. (Click here for full article)

STB News Alerts
Click here to read more about the Firm’s insurance-related news and honors.

2

D&O Alerts:
Delaware Supreme Court Rules
That Related Claim Provision Bars
Coverage For Securities Class
Action
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a
Related Claim provision barred coverage fora later-filed securities class action because
the suit was based on facts and wrongful actsthat were “the same as or related to” thosealleged in a prior class action. First Solar, Inc.
v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,PA, 2022 WL 792158 (Del. Mar. 16, 2022).
Stockholders of First Solar filed a class action
lawsuit in 2012 alleging that the company
violated federal securities laws by making
false or misleading public disclosures.
National Union provided coverage undera claims-made policy in effect from 20112012. In 2015, a second set of stockholders
brought suit, alleging violations of the same
federal securities laws, as well as Arizonastatutory and common law causes of action.
A National Union policy in effect from 20142015 excluded coverage for any “Related
Claims,” defined as “a Claim alleging, arisingout of, based upon or attributable to any
facts or Wrongful Acts that are the same asor related to those that were . . . alleged in a
Claim made against an Insured.” After First
Solar exhausted coverage under its 2011-2012
policies, it sought coverage for the later-filed
action under the 2014-2015 policies.
A Delaware trial court ruled that coverage forthe second action was barred by the Related
Claim provision. Applying a “fundamentally
identical” standard for determining
relatedness, the trial court concluded that thetwo suits stemmed from the same underlying
conduct and alleged violations against
the same defendants in an overlapping
time period.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, but
held that the trial court erred in applying a“fundamentally identical” test. Instead, thecourt explained that the plain language ofthe policy requires an evaluation of whether
a later-filed suit raises claims that “arise outof, are based upon or attributable to any facts
or Wrongful Acts that are the same as orrelated to” those in a prior action. The court
held that this standard was met because thesecond action was based on the same typesof misrepresentations made during the sametime frame, involved the same overall legal
theory, and shared common facts with thefirst action. The court rejected First Solar’sassertion that the first action centered on“historical performance” representations,while the second action involved predictionsand “forward-looking statements,” explainingthat such differences were not meaningful.
Similarly, the court deemed it irrelevant thatthe types of damages sought in each action
were different.
The court distinguished Pfizer Inc. v. Arch
Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3306043 (Del. Super. July23, 2019) (discussed in our July/August 2019
Alert), which held that two complaints were
not sufficiently related. The court emphasizedthat while the two actions in Pfizer arose outof the same drug, they involved substantiallydifferent omissions and misrepresentations
and relied on different evidence.
Finally, the court noted that in a different
matter, First Solar filed a “Motion to Transfer
Related Case,” which conceded that the two
actions were nearly identical.

Delaware Supreme Court Rules
That Insurers Need Not Cover Costs
Of Defending Appraisal Suit
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a lower
court decision holding that insurers were notobligated to pay the costs of defending anappraisal action because that suit did not seek
compensation “for a wrongful act.” Jarden
LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2022 WL
618962 (Del. Mar. 3, 2022).
Jarden entered into a merger agreementthat was approved by a majority of its
shareholders. However, a group of dissenting
shareholders filed an appraisal action, arguingthat Jarden should have negotiated a higher
3per-share price. A trial court ultimately
found that the fair market value of the share
was less than that provided in the merger,
but determined that the merger negotiation
process was flawed. As a result, Jarden wasordered to pay to the shareholders the fairvalue of the shares as well as $38 million ininterest accumulated during the course of
litigation. Jarden’s insurers refused to pay
the costs of Jarden’s defense or the interest
payment, arguing that even if the appraisal
action was a covered securities claim, there
was still no coverage because the policies
require underlying claims to seek redress “fora Wrongful Act.”A Delaware trial court agreed and ruled in
the insurers’ favor. The court held that theappraisal action did not seek redress for any
conduct by Jarden, reasoning that “in order
for a claim to be ‘for’ a wrongful act, it must‘seek redress in response to, or as requital of,’that act.” The court noted that this conclusion
is the logical extension of the Delaware
Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Solera Ins.
Coverage Appeals, 2020 WL 6280593 (Del.
Oct. 23, 2020) (discussed in our November
2020 Alert), which upheld a coverage denial
for an appraisal claim based on different
policy language. The court observed that“evidence of a flawed negotiation process”
bears on the “reliability of the negotiated deal
price,” but is not a necessary element of an
appraisal action.
Finally, the trial court noted that even if theappraisal action was a claim “for a Wrongful
Act,” it did not arise out of an act committed
before the run-off date. The court agreed with
the insurers that the act that conferred theappraisal litigation rights was the execution of
the merger, which did not close until after the

run-off date. The court deemed it irrelevantthat the dissenting shareholders lodged
appraisal demands prior to the run-off date.
In a summary opinion issued this month, theDelaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court ruling in full.

Cyber Alerts:
Ohio Supreme Court Set To Rule
On Whether Ransomware Attack
Triggers Insurance Coverage
Our November 2021 Alert reported on an
Ohio appellate court decision which heldthat issues of fact existed as to whether
a ransomware attack on a policyholder’scomputer system triggered coverage undera business owner’s policy. EMOI Services,
LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., 180 N.E.3d 683(Ohio Ct. App. 2021). When EMOI was
the victim of a ransomware attack, it paid
the hacker and then sought coverage from
Owners. The insurer denied coverage, notingthat a Data Compromise endorsement
explicitly precluded coverage for ransomware
payments and that an Electronic Equipment
endorsement did not apply because it
required “direct physical loss or damage.” A
trial court agreed and dismissed the suit. The
trial court reasoned that there was no physicalloss because, even assuming that EMOI’s
software was damaged while it was encryptedby the hackers, it became fully functional once
the ransom payment was made.
An appellate court reversed, noting that
the Electronic Equipment endorsement
covered “direct physical loss of or damage to‘media’” and defined “media” as “materials on
which information is recorded such as film,
magnetic tape, paper tape, disks, drums, andcards,” including “computer software andreproduction of data contained on covered
media.” Viewing the evidence in a light mostfavorable to EMOI, the appellate court ruledthat computer servers may be “media” under
the policy because they “constituted materials
on which EMOI’s information was recorded.”
The appellate court also ruled that EMOI
had raised an issue of fact as to whether its
software incurred “direct physical damage”
because the record established that portionsof the software remained unusable even after
decryption.
4

This month, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed
to review the appellate court decision. We
will keep you apprised of developments inthis matter.

In scenarios presenting different policy
language and a factual record linking cyberrelated losses to Russia’s current military
actions, a war exclusion may be deemed
applicable to bar coverage.

Russian War In Ukraine May
Implicate War Exclusion In
Cyber-Related Coverage Claims
Recent events in Ukraine have heightenedawareness of potential cyberattacks
perpetrated by Russian actors. Resulting
business interruption losses from any suchcyberattacks may give rise to coveragelitigation involving a war exclusion, among
other issues. Outcomes in such litigation will
be driven primarily by specific exclusionary
language, which may differ significantly
across policies.
As discussed in our January 2022 Alert, a
New Jersey trial court recently ruled that a
war exclusion in an all risk policy did not bar
coverage for claims arising out of a malware
attack. Merck & Co., Inc. v. ACE AmericanIns. Co., No. UNN-L-2682-18 (N.J. Super.
Ct. Jan. 13, 2022). There, Merck’s insurers
argued that the evidence established that
the Russian government was responsible forthe cyberattack and therefore coverage wasbarred by an exclusion that applied to:
Loss or damage caused by hostileor warlike action in time of peace orwar, including action in hindering,
combating, or defending against an
actual, impending, or expected attack:a) by an government or sovereign power(de jure or de facto) or by any authority
maintaining or using military, naval
or air forces; b) or by military, naval,
or air forces; c) or by an agent of suchgovernment, power, authority or forces.
Rejecting this assertion, the court noted thatdecisions interpreting war-related exclusions
have construed “war” to mean the use ofarmed forces in conflicts between nations
and have deemed such exclusions to beinapplicable to scenarios not directly linked
to military conflict. In so ruling, the court
noted that the exclusion did not include any
language indicating that it was intended toencompass cyberattacks. An interlocutory
appeal of the decision is currently pending.
However, the parameters of war exclusions
have rarely been tested in coverage litigation.

COVID-19 Alerts:
Affirming Dismissal Of
Policyholder’s Suit, Fourth Circuit
Rules That Physical Loss Requires
Material Destruction Or Harm To
Covered Property
The Fourth Circuit ruled that “physical loss ordamage” is unambiguous and encompasses
only losses caused by “material destruction
or material harm to the covered property.”
Applying this standard, the court concluded
that the policyholder did not suffer physicalloss or damage resulting from the COVID19 pandemic or related government orders.
Uncork and Create LLC v. Cincinnati Ins.
Co., 2022 WL 662986 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022).
The policyholder sought business interruption
coverage in the wake of government ordered
shutdowns. Cincinnati denied coveragebased on the absence of “direct physicalloss or damage” to property. Thereafter, thepolicyholder filed a class action complaint,seeking a declaration that the policy provided
coverage. A West Virginia district court
granted Cincinnati’s motion to dismiss, rulingthat neither the virus itself nor the closure
orders caused physical loss or damage. As
discussed in our November 2020 Alert, thedistrict court distinguished West Virginia
precedent in which physical loss or damage
was found notwithstanding the lack ofphysical alteration to insured property,
explaining that in that case, a nearby rock fall
made insured property uninhabitable dueto physical threat, whereas here, the virus
5and government orders had no effect on thepolicyholder’s physical premises. This month,
the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The Fourth Circuit held that the plain
meaning of the terms “physical loss”
and “physical damage” requires material
destruction or harm, and that the “needto repair, rebuild, replace, or expend time
securing a new, permanent property is a precondition for coverage of lost business income
and other expenses.” The court concluded
that this requirement was not met here,emphasizing that the policyholder continued
using its property during the relevant time
period, albeit with certain limitations.

Minnesota Court Dismisses
COVID-19 Coverage, Finding
No Coverage Under Business
Interruption, Civil Authority Or
Contamination Provisions
A Minnesota district court dismissed ahealth care organization’s COVID-19-related
coverage suit, finding that neither government
orders nor allegations of actual viral presence
on property sufficiently alleged “direct
physical loss of or damage” to property, as
required by the policy. HealthPartners, Inc. v.
Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 597518(D. Minn. Feb. 28, 2022).
When government orders required
HealthPartners to limit its medical services,
it sought coverage for lost business revenue.
American Guarantee paid for losses incurredat three fitness centers that were required
to close during the relevant time period,
but denied HealthPartners’ claim relating
to other alleged losses. The court granted
American Guarantee’s motion to dismiss
HealthPartners’ coverage suit, issuing thefollowing noteworthy holdings:

Government Orders: The court ruled thatgovernment orders do not constitute “direct
physical loss of or damage to” property.
Citing Oral Surgeons, P.C. v. Cincinnati Ins.
Co., 2 F.4th 1141 (8th Cir. 2021) (discussed
in our July/August 2021 Alert), the court
held that a policyholder’s loss of use ofproperty is not a physical loss for purposes of
insurance coverage.
Direct Loss “of” Property: The court rejected
HealthPartners’ assertion that policy
language requiring “direct loss of” property is
distinguishable from “direct loss to” property,
such that a loss of use of property due togovernment orders is potentially covered.
The court acknowledged that a different
Minnesota district court held that “direct
physical loss of” property is plausibly alleged
when a policyholder alleges that government
orders resulted in complete businessclosure, see Seifert v. IMT Ins. Co., 542 F.
Supp. 3d 874 (D. Minn. 2021) (discussed in
our June 2021 Alert), but noted that here,
HealthPartners did not plausibly allege aclosure of its facilities.
Contamination as Direct Physical Loss:
The court held that allegations of actual
presence of the virus at insured property is
not sufficient to allege direct physical loss ofor damage to property. Distinguishing cases
involving asbestos or pesticide contamination,
the court explained that “HealthPartners has
not plausibly alleged that something about its
covered property has fundamentally changed
in a way that cannot be undone.” Further, thecourt emphasized that COVID-19 is a threat topeople, not insured property.
Civil Authority Coverage: The court
ruled that civil authority coverage wasunavailable because (1) there was no
physical loss of or damage to property
located near HealthPartners’ facilities; and(2) the government orders only temporarily
restricted the use of facilities and did notprohibit access.
Communicable Disease Coverage: The
policy covered loss due to a suspension inbusiness activities caused by “an authorized
governmental agency enforcing any law orordinance regulating communicable disease
and that such portions of the location are
declared uninhabitable due to the threatof the spread of communicable disease,prohibiting access to those portions of thelocation.” The court concluded that this6

provision was inapplicable because thegovernment orders did not declare any
insured property uninhabitable.

Dismissing Suit, Mississippi Court
Rules That Endorsement Requires
Premises-Specific Exposure To
Virus
A Mississippi district court dismissed
restaurants’ breach of contract and bad faithsuit, ruling that a policy endorsement did notprovide coverage for business losses allegedly
caused by the COVID-19 virus and related
executive shutdown orders. University
Management, Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas.
Ins. Co., 2022 WL 805879 (N.D. Miss. Mar.
15, 2022).
Several restaurants and bars sought coverage
under a “Limited Extension for Food-Borne
Illness” endorsement. The endorsement
covered loss caused by the “suspension ofyour ‘operations’ at the described premises
due to the order of a civil authority; oradverse public communications or media
reports, resulting from the actual or alleged. . . [e]xposure of the described premises to acontagious or infectious disease.” The insurer
denied coverage, arguing that there was nosuspension of operations due to exposure toa disease and that the executive orders were
not prompted by conditions at the insured
premises. The court agreed and dismissed
the suit.
The court concluded that the endorsement
was unambiguous and required a causal link
between the suspension of operations at
the insured premises and actual or alleged
exposure at those specific premises to acontagious or infectious disease. No suchcausation existed here, the court explained,
because the policyholders failed to allege
or provide evidence of contamination attheir specific locations. The court deemed
it insufficient that media reports andexecutive orders referred to the spread of
COVID-19 throughout the entire restaurant
industry, stating: “The express language of
the Executive Orders directly contradicts
UMI’s position because it addresses thesuspension of in-person dining, among otheractivities, due to ‘the risk’ of the spread of
COVID-19, making no mention of any actual
presence of COVID-19 in every location
throughout Mississippi, let alone UMI’soperations specifically.”

Privacy Alert:
Policy Exclusions Do Not Relieve
Insurer Of Duty To Defend BIPA
Suit, Says Illinois Court
An Illinois district court ruled that several
policy exclusions were ambiguous and thatan insurer was therefore obligated to defend
a suit alleging violations of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Citizens
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflex Waukegan,
LLC, 2022 WL 602534 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
1, 2022).
Thermoflex sought coverage for a suitalleging that it violated the BIPA by collecting
employees’ handprint data. The policy
provided personal and advertising injury
coverage for claims arising out of “[o]ralor written publication[s], in any manner,of material that violates a person’s right ofprivacy.” The insurer argued that it had no
duty to defend or indemnify the BIPA claims
because of three policy exclusions. The court
disagreed and ruled in Thermoflex’s favor.

First, the court ruled that an EmploymentRelated Practices Exclusion did notunambiguously bar coverage. The exclusion
applied to “[e]mployment-related practices,
policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion,
demotion, evaluation, reassignment,
discipline, defamation, harassment,
humiliation, discrimination or malicious
prosecution.” The insurers argued that thephrase “such as” indicates that the list ofacts in the exclusion is not exhaustive andextends to the underlying privacy claims.
In contrast, Thermoflex contended that theunderlying BIPA claims are entirely different
in nature from the employment practices
listed in the exclusion. The court deemed theexclusion ambiguous. Notably, a different
Illinois district court interpreted a similar
exclusion to bar coverage for BIPA claims, see
7Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., S.I. v. Caremel,Inc., 2022 WL 79868 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2022),
finding that a BIPA violation is of “the same
nature” as the practices listed in the exclusion
because they all reflect actions that cause
harm to employees. The Thermoflex court
disagreed with that reasoning, explainingthat such an interpretation is contrary to
the rule requiring policy exclusions to beread narrowly.
Second, the court deemed a Recording andDistribution Exclusion ambiguous. The
exclusion listed several specific statutes(such as the TCPA, the CAN-SPAM Act of
2003, and the FCRA), along with a catch-all
provision that applied to “[a]ny federal, stateor local statute, ordinance or regulation” that
“addresses, prohibits, or limits the printing,dissemination, disposal, collecting, recording,sending, transmitting, communicating or
distribution of material or information.”

information, including patents, trade secrets,
processing methods, customer lists, financial
information, credit card information, healthinformation or any other type of nonpublic
information.” The court reasoned that
handprints do not share the attributes ofthe other types of personal information
listed in the exclusion. In so ruling, the court
noted that BIPA statutory language itself
distinguishes between biometric identifiersand “confidential and sensitive information.”
The court declined to rule on whether the
insurer was obligated to indemnify theunderlying claims, finding the issue to beunripe before the insured has been held liable.

Filed-Rate Alert:
Sixth Circuit Rules That Filed-Rate
Doctrine Precludes Suit Against
Insurer
Affirming a Kentucky district court decision,
the Sixth Circuit ruled that the filed-rate
doctrine required dismissal of a policyholder’sclaims against its workers’ compensation
insurer. Granite State Ins. Co. v. Star Mine
Servs., Inc., 2022 WL 776461 (6th Cir. Mar.
15, 2022).

Relying on the Illinois Supreme Court’s
decision in W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna
Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 WL 2005464(Ill. May 20, 2021) (discussed in our May
2021 Alert), the court ruled that BIPA claims
did not unambiguously fall within the catchall provision of this exclusion. As the Krishna
court noted, BIPA is not a statute “of the samekind” as those listed since it does not regulate
methods of communication. The court
acknowledged that the exclusionary language
at issue here was somewhat broader in scopethan the exclusionary language presented
in Krishna but expressed uncertainty as towhether that added breadth was sufficient tobar coverage.
Finally, the court concluded that an Accessor Disclosure Exclusion did not relieve
the insurer of its duty to defend. The
exclusion applied to claims “arising out of
any access to or disclosure of any person’sor organization’s confidential or personal

Granite State issued workers’ compensation
coverage to Star Mine Services. In connection
with that coverage, Granite State annuallyaudited Star Mine’s payroll records, uponwhich it would calculate annual premiums.
In 2018, Granite State adjusted its estimatedpremium halfway through the year to reflect
underestimations in payroll from the prioryear. Star Mine refused to pay the difference
and the policy was ultimately cancelled. In a
final bill, Granite State sought payment forthe premium difference, as well as an “audit
noncompliance surcharge” (which was twice
the estimated annual premium) based on
Star Mine’s refusal to participate in a final
audit. When Star Mine again failed to remit
payment, Granite State filed suit. Rulingon the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment, the district court held that the
filed-rate doctrine precluded review of theaudit noncompliance surcharge and the total
amount of damages due.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, ruling that the
filed-rate doctrine barred review of Star
8

Mine’s challenge to the audit noncompliancecharge because that charge was part of boththe policy and an industry manual filedwith state regulators. The court rejectedStar Mine’s contention that the surcharge
was not a “rate,” noting that the filed-rate
doctrine applies broadly to all charges, tariffs
and rates that are part of a contract’s “termsof service.” Star Mine also argued that the
filed-rate doctrine did not apply because
Star Mine was challenging the enforceabilityof the charge, not its reasonableness.
Rejecting this assertion, the court explainedthat “distinguishing between legality andreasonableness does little to help Star Mine”
because, under Kentucky precedent, the filedrate doctrine bars challenges that attack thelegality of approved rates.

Regulatory Alert:
New York Governor Amends
Comprehensive Insurance
Disclosure Act
Last December, New York Governor
Kathy Hochul signed the Comprehensive
Insurance Disclosure Act, which requires
litigation defendants to share detailed
insurance coverage information. Critics of
the Act argued that it placed an unreasonableburden on defendants because it required
information to be provided within 60 days ofanswering a complaint and encompassed not
only insurance policy information, but also

contact information for adjusters, insurance
applications and certifications as to theaccuracy of disclosures.
Last month, Governor Hochul signed
amendments to the Act which eased someof the original requirements. Among otherthings, the amendments lengthen thedeadlines for disclosures on new lawsuits
from 60 days to 90 days and clarify that thedisclosure requirements apply only to newsuits, not existing suits. In addition, theamendments specify that certain detailed
information, such as insurance adjuster
phone numbers and insurance policy
applications, need not be disclosed.

STB News Alerts
Simpson Thacher’s Insurance Practice wasagain named Practice Group of the Year at
Euromoney’s Benchmark Litigation 2022
Awards Dinner. This is the ninth time theFirm has received the Insurance Firm of theYear award.
In addition, the Firm was also shortlisted for
the Securities Firm of the Year award. Mary
Beth Forshaw, Head of Simpson Thacher’s
Insurance and Reinsurance Practice, andLitigation Partner Andy Frankel were both
shortlisted as Insurance Litigators of theYear, and Jon Youngwood, Global Co-Chair ofSimpson Thacher’s Litigation Department, wasshortlisted as Securities Litigator of the Year.

9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua Polster+1-212-455-2266
joshua.polster@stblaw.com

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

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

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

Isaac M. Rethy+1-212-455-3869
irethy@stblaw.com

This edition of the Insurance Law
Alert was prepared byBryce L. Friedman / +1-212-455-2235
bfriedman@stblaw.com andChet A. Kronenberg / +1-310-407-7557
ckronenberg@stblaw.com
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.
10SimpsonThacherWorldwide

UNITED STATESEUROPEASIANew York
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017+1-212-455-2000

Brussels
Square de Meeus 1, Floor 7
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium+32-472-99-42-26

Beijing
3901 China World Tower A
1 Jian Guo Men Wai Avenue
Beijing 100004
China+86-10-5965-2999

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

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

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

SOUTH AMERICA

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

11