Source: https://www.cozen.com/practices/insurance
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:08:55+00:00

Document:
Greg Hudson discusses the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Menchaca v. USAA Texas Lloyds Company. The court articulates five rules when extracontractual causes of action are available even when there has been no breach of the insurance policy and clarifies the procedural steps a court should follow in determining which rule applies.
Cozen O’Connor is an internationally recognized leader in the area of insurance coverage and claims. With more than 90 dedicated coverage attorneys in 29 offices on two continents, our coverage team handles complex matters for insurance industry clients across the United States and around the world.
Cozen O’Connor works closely with clients throughout the claims process to resolve issues efficiently and in a way that serves insurers’ broad business goals. Often, detailed contractual analysis and thoughtful negotiation can bring a matter to a swift conclusion. If not, our attorneys are highly skilled at dispositive motions, alternative dispute resolutions and trial.
Indeed, Cozen O’Connor attorneys have been serving as lead trial counsel or national coordinating counsel in complex coverage litigation for four decades. The team includes fellows in the American College of Trial Lawyers and International Academy of Trial Lawyers, individuals and practices highly ranked by Chambers & Partners USA and other publications, and authors of widely cited treatises on insurance law.
The size, bench strength and geographic scope of our practice greatly benefits insurers. We are able to provide comprehensive one-stop coverage counsel, advise clients on each state’s unique set of codes and jurisprudence, and identify new trends in coverage and claims handling on a national and international basis.
On March 11, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court provided a victory for insurers when it found that an insurer did not act in bad faith by failing to accept a policy limits demand that lacked a deadline to respond and was abruptly withdrawn after 41 days, even though the insurer had already determined that the insured’s likely exposure exceeded policy limits.
Stephanie Lemoine discusses the age of insurtech and why consumers must be aware of what information insurers are sharing with third parties. She also expands on the Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is the most broad-sweeping legislation regarding personal identifying information.
Christopher Kende (Insurance, New York) contributed an article to the March edition of the New York City Bar’s Aeronautics Committee Newsletter discussing a federal court case in which an individual was awarded $2.2 million in damages after suffering from PTSD, major depressive disorder and decompression sickness as a result of a decompression incident onboard an aircraft manufactured by Boeing.
Nadia Bugaighis discusses the decision in MTI and why insurers should carefully consider jurisdiction and choice of law when determining how to apply the j(5) and j(6) property damage exclusions.
In response to the rising costs associated with the opioid epidemic, Terri Sutton discusses the varied success of coverage defenses that have been litigated as well as what we can expect to see in the months and years to come.
Kristie M. Abel discusses how Abbey/Land demonstrates that an insurer can successfully contest such a judgment, however, the insurer needs to meet a high burden in order to prevail.
Laura Dowgin discusses the decision in D.K. Prop., Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA and notes that while it resulted in a favorable outcome for the policyholder there has been no shift in New York bad faith law.
Andrew Tobin and Marli Wildchut discuss a recent marine insurance case wherein London based but U.S. controlled insurers were ordered by an English court to pay a cargo insurance claim concerning Iran, under a policy governed by English Law, because the standard London Market sanctions exclusion clause did not provide them with a defense.
Sam Stalker and Teri Mae Rutledge discuss an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that deviates from the recent trend, holding that the “nuanced” interpretation of the policies in those other decisions did not supersede the plain requirement for coverage of property damage caused by an occurrence.
Michael Handler, a member in the firm's Global Insurance Department, authored "Reimbursement to Insurer for Defense of Non-covered Claims" for the Professional Liability Defense Quarterly.
Alycen Moss, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, published an article titled, Complicated Cats, for Best's Review.
The first step in any coverage analysis is determining which jurisdiction’s laws govern the coverage issues. This can be outcome determinative as demonstrated by the Supreme Court of Delaware’s recent decision in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, Case No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), in which the choice of law analysis made a $13.7 million difference.
Century Surety Company insured Pastazios Pizza, Inc. under a commercial general liability policy. Pastazios, along with its owner and manager, Ajredin Deari, was sued by eighteen year old Jane Doe in Texas state court.
Teri Mae Rutledge discusses the California Supreme Court's decision in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc.
Stephen Pate, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance Department, authored an article on his predictions on the course of Hurricane Harvey litigation entitled, "The Imperfect Storm: Harvey Litigation Will Be Governed by Hailstorm Bill's Rules, While 'Menchaca' Looms in the Background."
Laura B. Dowgin discusses the big win for insurers in the New York Court of Appeals as this decision instructs New York courts to look at the terms of the insurance contract at issue, and where no coverage was given, and no premium received, the risk of liability is placed on the policyholder.
Michael D. Handler and Jordan A. Hess discuss the Washington Court of Appeals reversal of a trial court’s dismissal of the bad faith claim against a claims adjuster, holding that individual insurance adjusters could be liable for violating the CPA if they caused financial injury by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that impact the public interest.
Jonathan Walton, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, co-authored an article titled, "Recent Developments in Alternative Dispute Resolution" for the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal.
Anu Prasad, an associate in the firm's Global Insurance Department, co-authored the chapter "Recent Developments in Insurance Coverage" in Volume 52-3 of the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal.
Stephen Pate, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, authored an article titled, "Reconstruction Politics and the Galveston Seven: The Struggle to Appoint a Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, 1869-72, Part I" which appears in the Winter 2018 issue of the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society Journal.
Julia Molander and Laura Dowgin discuss the implications of the Carlson decision for out-of-state insurers that insure corporations that do business in New York, where the corporation is not a resident of New York but has “a substantial business presence” in the state.
Irene Yesowitch, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, wrote an article titled, "A Pandora's Box?" which appeared in Best's Review.
Christopher Kende, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, wrote an article titled "Recent Case Law Defining 'Bodily Injury' under the Montreal Convention" for Best Lawyers.
Michael Melendez discusses the first published opinion of a California appellate court that directly addresses whether the ongoing operations limitation in additional insured endorsements precludes completed operations coverage.
Stephen Pate, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance Department, wrote an article titled, "No Longer Stuck in the Weeds: Marijuana Insurance Moves into the Mainstream" for Business Insurance.
Jonathan Toren discusses a recent Washington Court of Appeals decision on three important issues for insurers relating to bad faith actions.
Andrew Tobin reviews selected recent cases from England, Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, and Singapore.
This white paper is the second in a two-part series. In Part One, Andrew Tobin reviewed selected cases from England, Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, and Singapore. In Part Two, Andrew discusses the impact of the UK Insurance Act 2015 on conditions precedent.
Elan Kandel and Alexander Selarnick, of Cozen O'Connor's Global Insurance department, co-authored an article for Risk Management titled "Insuring Against Social Engineering Attacks."
Michael Melendez discusses the Teleflex decision that provides persuasive authority that excess insurers in California must seriously consider settlement demands exceeding primary limits in electing whether to accept the settlement, reject it and assume the insured’s defense, or reject it and decline the insured’s defense.
Terri Sutton discusses manufacturers of medical devices in Washington's new duty to warn hospitals that purchase their devices, and that product manufacturers of “unavoidably unsafe products” may face strict liability for failure to warn claims.
Michael Handler of the Global Insurance Department discusses the state of insurance for present-day data breach claims in Best's Review.
Greg Hudson discusses the Texas Supreme Court decision that the language of the insured v. insured exclusion also includes any claim where a party has stepped into the shoes of an insured.
Jonathan Toren discusses a recent Eighth Circuit ruling that an Insured vs. Insured exclusion applied to an insured director’s entire lawsuit, even though other non-insured shareholders were also plaintiffs in the suit.
Michael D. Handler discusses yesterday's Washington Supreme Court decision interpreting the state’s 2007 IFCA — the decade-old legislation that created a new statutory cause of action against an insurer, prescribing penalties for violating any one of 37 regulations set forth in the WAC.
Tracy L. Eggleston and Patrick M. Aul discuss the South Carolina Supreme Court’s recent decision that adopts strict requirements for effective reservation of rights letters.
Terri Sutton discusses the Washington Supreme Court decision in Volk v. DeMeerleer, which it expanded the duty of physicians to protect third-parties who might be victims of violence.
William F. Knowles and Katie M. Sluss discuss a decision by the Division I Washington Court of Appeals that granted partial relief to an insurer and held that if an insured is legally insulated from any exposure to a tort victim, the presumption of harm in a bad faith claim against the insurer is rebutted and there is no coverage by estoppel.
Karl A. Schulz discusses the Fifth Circuit's clarification of a typical but potentially tricky question involving property claims in De Jongh v. State Farm Lloyds.
William Knowles and Jonathan Toren discuss the latest Washington Supreme Court decision regarding the attorney-client privilege and whether it protects a corporation’s attorney’s communications with former employees of the corporation.
Patrick Aul discusses what insurers in both North and South Carolina should be mindful of when handling Hurricane Matthew related claims.
Angelo G. Savino and Alexander Selarnick discuss the Seventh Circuit's decision in Allen v. GreatBanc Trust Co and its ramifications for ERISA plan fiduciaries and their insurers.
Richard Mason of the Global Insurance Department authors this Insight Regulatory/Law column on the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance.
Julia A. Molander and William F. Knowles discuss the FountainCourt Homeowners Association v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. decision holds that eviscerated the seminal case of Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co.
Andrew Tobin of the Global Insurance Department discusses the turmoil in Turkey, and what it can mean for political violence insurers, in Insurance day.
Chris Clemenson and John Daly discuss a Colorado Supreme Court decision holding that extrinsic evidence can only be used to interpret ambiguous policy language, not unambiguous policy language.
Melissa O’Loughlin White discusses a unanimous decision by the Washington Supreme Court that rejected the policyholder’s arguments that certain provisions in a “Vacancy or Unoccupancy” endorsement were ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage.
Julie Molander discusses a recent California Supreme Court case that could be a harbinger of future appeals attempting to expand the constitutional cap on punitive damages.
Andrew Tobin and Marli Wildschut discuss the Chinese legal system. It is based on the civil law system that is structurally similar to Germany and France and there are some significant differences to English and U.S. law. London and other international insurers should be aware that Chinese law imposes greater obligations upon them than might typically be expected.
Jonathan Toren co-authored two chapters with Frank Cordell of the 2016-2017 edition, which offers a comprehensive understanding of the key types of cases and considerations inherent in insurance litigation in Washington.
Julia Molander and Yevgenia Wiener of the Global Insurance Department discuss driverless vehicles, which will require a new liability paradigm.
Andrew Tobin writes an Insight article in Best's Review. Updated English law will have global consequences when it takes effect this summer.
The Court of Appeal in AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP has ordered a retrial of the question of whether actions brought by 214 investors in two failed holiday property schemes in Turkey and Morocco against the former International Law Partnership can be treated as a single claim by its professional indemnity insurer.
Christopher S. Clemenson and John Daly discuss Monday's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court in Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co. holding that an insurer does not need to show prejudice to enforce a “no-voluntary-payments” provision.
Jonathan Walton of the Global Insurance Department co-authored this piece in the American Bar Association's Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, discussing alternative dispute resolution.
Craig H. Bennion discusses property insurance policies that exclude rot damage that have been called upon to cover rot because the policies extend coverage to collapse — an undefined term — caused by hidden decay, even if the structure remains standing and in use.
Stacey Farrell discusses a recent Alaska Supreme Court Case that concluded insurers cannot seek reimbursement for defense costs incurred defending uncovered claims.
Richard C. Mason and Kristie M. Abel discuss a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that declared an insurance company was not required to show it suffered prejudice before disclaiming coverage on the basis of the insured's failure to give timely notice of the claim under a Directors and Officers claims made policy.
Gregory Hudson and Adam Gutmann discuss the Supreme Court of Texas's decision that installation of a faulty component does not cause physical injury to the machinery onto which it is installed, even when removal of the faulty component causes damage during the repair process.
Andrew Tobin writes about the challenges of the political risk market.
the Supreme Court of Oregon overturned 42 years of precedent, holding that Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine erred when it decided that a covenant not to execute given in exchange for an assignment of rights, by itself, creates a release that dissolves an insured’s liability and, by extension, the insurer’s liability as well.
Christopher Kende authored this article in the French Maritime Law Review which discuses a recent Supreme Court case which dealt with the definition of a "vessel" under maritime law.
An insured is entitled to select its own counsel where an insurer’s coverage reservation creates an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured. The court further held that the insurer must pay the independent counsel a “reasonable” rate.
In a unanimous decision that will have a serious impact on long-tail exposures, the California Supreme Court in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Hartford Acc. & Indem.) has determined that policyholders may transfer liability policies to new entities formed after the policies were purchased.
On August 10, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that could have broad implications regarding an insurer’s right to seek reimbursement of unreasonable fees and costs directly from so-called Cumis counsel. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, LLC, ___ Cal.4th ___ (2015), the Court held that an insurer—operating under an order that expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover payments of excessive fees—can seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel.
Looking to the fact allegations in the complaint against the insureds, the court found that but for the individual actions as trustees there would be no claim against any insured entity.
In its discussion, the Washington Supreme Court found that the term collapse, as used in the insurance policy before it, was ambiguous. The court then adopted a definition of collapse, but the use of uncertain terms in its definition may lead to further ambiguity.
Alycen Moss and Lynnette Espy-Williams discuss the statutory requirements regarding rescission, the contestable period, rescission methods, waiver considerations, the most common defenses to rescission, and a closing note on a likely claims from the insured – bad faith.
Jennifer Kennedy-Coggins and V. Morgan Carroll discuss the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and will examine the potential coverage available for FACTA violations under Georgia Law.
In Tibble v. Edison International, the Supreme Court ruled that trustees of ERISA plans owe a continuing duty to monitor trust investments on a regular basis and remove those that become imprudent.
The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously held that when an insured fails to seek its insurer’s consent to settle a claim, the insured cannot pursue litigation against its insurer to recover settlement amounts paid by the insured without its insurer’s consent or for bad faith refusal to settle.
Throughout the past decade, the federal False Claims Act has imposed billions of dollars in penalties upon corporations.
On April 20, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously held that when an insured fails to seek its insurer’s consent to settle a claim, the insured cannot pursue litigation against its insurer to recover settlement amounts paid by the insured without its insurer’s consent or for bad faith refusal to settle.
In In re Deepwater Horizon, Cause No. 13-0670, Slip Op., Feb. 13, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court held that an allocation of liability found in an “insured contract” would determine the coverage provided to an additional insured in a general liability policy. Specifically, the court held that the additional insured had coverage under the general liability policy of the named insured only to the extent the named insured was required to obtain coverage for the additional insured.
In Colorado, under the notice-prejudice rule, an insured who gives late notice of a claim to his or her liability insurer does not lose coverage benefits unless the insurer proves that the late notice prejudiced its interests. Friedland v. Travelers Indem. Co., 105 P.3d 639, 643 (Colo. 2005). On February 17, 2015, in response to certified question of law from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to date-certain notice requirements in claims-made policies. Craft v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., Case No. 14SA43. Rather, date-certain notice requirements will be enforced as written.
Adam Stein of the Global Insurance Department discusses private equity funds in the article titled Deep Cover in Best's Review. Limited partner investors in private equity funds and other “passive” institutional investors are being sued in growing numbers, a trend that can be expected to continue as courts in many jurisdictions continue to entertain such suits.
On January 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit handed down Philadelphia Consolidated Holdings Corp. v. LSI-Lowery Systems, Inc., which decided whether a technology company’s claim was covered under its professional liability policy. In LSI-Lowery, the court decided three issues of current importance for “claims made” policies. First, emails showing an expectation the insured would be sued meant that a “claim” had been made even though damages were not expressly demanded. Second, when it was made, the claim involved a “wrongful act,” even though it related to breach of a contract (an excluded circumstance). Third, a regulation mandating a finding of prejudice in order to prevail on “late notice” did not apply because there was no coverage under the policy in the first instance.
Richard Mason of the Global Insurance Department discusses the recently enacted laws and how they can lead to fresh claims. Victims of sexual abuse are taking advantage of state reviver statutes to file claims that were previously time-barred, leading to unexpected exposures for religious and educational institutions, among others.
The U.S. Senate wrapped up the 113th Congress and left Washington without holding a vote to renew the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). In the closing weeks of the session, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had negotiated an agreement with Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that would have reauthorized TRIA for six years and raised the trigger for government reimbursement from $100 million to $200 million and increased companies’ co-payments to 20 percent from 15 percent.
On 26 November 2014 the British Home Secretary introduced the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill to Parliament (the Bill), part of which deals specifically with prohibiting the payment of insurance claims in respect of payments made in response to terrorist demands. The insurers of Piracy, Kidnap and Ransom, and extortion policies will be particularly affected.
In Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., Cause No. 3:14-1340, In the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, the federal district court construed a professional liability policy issued by Ironshore to require a defense of the law firm policyholder in a fee dispute, despite an absence of allegations that the insured law firm negligently provided any legal service.
On October 10, 2014, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decided Camico Mutual Ins. Co. v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP, where it enforced a policy clause providing for repayment to the insurer of defense costs, and confirmed that a 2010 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision had not invalidated such clauses. The court also determined the insured’s employee was performing “professional services” as defined in the policy notwithstanding the employee’s fraudulent conduct.
The Washington Supreme Court addressed two issues of first impression regarding legal malpractice claims in Schmidt v. Coogan, No. 88460-9, (October 9, 2014) and held: (1) that “uncollectibility” is an affirmative defense to a claim of legal malpractice, and (2) emotional distress damages are not available in a legal malpractice claim based upon a lawyer’s failure to timely file a lawsuit.
In interpreting the scope of the pollution exclusion, one question seems to appear in case after case — what exactly does the pollution exclusion exclude? In State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Dantzler, 289 Neb. 1 (2014), the Supreme Court of Nebraska added to the body of law on that question while summarizing the various interpretations from other jurisdictions.
Michael D. Handler of the Global Insurance Department in the Seattle office, writes an article for Litigation Management Magazine on rescission of insurance policies. “The path through rescission of an insurance policy is fraught with perils, even for insurers that attempt to proceed in the utmost good faith,” writes Handler.
In Greene v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, the Texas Supreme Court clarified the scope and application of § 862.054 of the Texas Insurance Code, the “anti-technicality” statute, holding that the clause would only operate in situations where the policyholder affirmatively violated an obligation created under the policy. The court further held that public policy did not change this result, despite the concurring opinion of two justices that argued that the court’s opinion created confusion as to whether and when public policy would dictate a different result. Specifically, the concurrence argued that the majority opinion failed to distinguish the instant case from prior cases involving a “nonmaterial breach” by a policyholder.
In a recent decision in the case of Pyramid Technologies, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 807 (9th Cir., May 19, 2014), the 9th Circuit, relying on California law, upheld a grant of summary judgment dismissing the insured’s business interruption claim as speculative. In addition, by a split decision, it reversed in part and remanded in part the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony from the insured’s expert witnesses under Daubert standards. Finally, and most importantly, the Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment concerning the insurer’s “genuine dispute” defense, holding that bad faith was an issue for the jury under the facts of the case.
In an article published in Law360, Angelo Savino and Julie Albright of the Global Insurance Department discuss unfinished business claims. In a departure from Jewel v. Boxer, the decisions in the cases of Thelen LLP and Heller Ehrman LLP reflect a shift in the manner by which courts treat trustees’ claims for post-dissolution fees, say Angelo Savino and Julie Moeller Albright of Cozen O'Connor.
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoffer, declared that no “presumption of prudence” applied to fiduciaries of “employee stock ownership plans” (ESOPs). In rejecting the defense-friendly standard, the high court noted that ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of prudence as any other ERISA fiduciary except that ESOP fiduciaries are not liable for losses that stem from a failure to diversify. The decision is also noteworthy in that it set forth guidelines for lower courts to follow at the motion to dismiss stage that will impact how plaintiffs are able to satisfy pleading requirements in cases against ESOP fiduciaries.
Gregory Hudson, of the Global Insurance department writes an article titled" Guilty D&O May Lose Defense Costos, Indemnification Too," in Law360. In Protection Strategies Inc. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia allowed an insurer to recoup over $670,000 in costs paid for its insured first to respond to government subpoenas and then for the insured and its key employees to defend themselves against claims for governmental fraud and conspiracy.
Andrew Tobin and Paul Dowsey of the Global Insurance Department, write about effective claims controls in facultative reinsurance in an article titled "Taking Charge" in Best's Review. Facultative business can give rise to conflicts between reinsurers and cedents in the handling of claims, particularly if the cedent is concerned with reputational risk and has no meaningful exposure.
On June 2, 2014, the Washington State Court of Appeals issued a published opinion regarding what constitutes a “suit” in the context of environmental liability claims under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The court held there must be “an explicit or implicit threat” from a government agency of “immediate and severe consequences by reason of the contamination” in order to trigger the duty to defend, and that no such threat was present. Gull Industries, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al., No. 69569-0-I. The opinion is significant in light of existing Washington law that states that an insurer may be required to indemnify an owner or operator of contaminated property even if no agency has taken or overtly threatened formal legal action.
International Law Digest containing the limitation periods in general, funding actions in Spain, privilege, bringing court proceedings, the role of experts, interim remedies, disclosure and costs.
Plaintiff John Z. Huang represented Yongping Zhou in a deportation suit. Mid-suit, Zhou terminated the representation and retained another attorney. Throughout the course of the litigation, Zhou hired several more attorneys and ultimately succeeded in vacating his domestic violence conviction after spending two years in an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center. Zhou then sued Huang for legal malpractice.
Insurers facing policy limits demands must act cautiously under even the best of circumstances to avoid threats of bad faith. The situation becomes far more complicated when the insurer receives a policy limits demand and it insures multiple insureds and/or additional insureds. Complete chaos can ensue when an insurer has multiple insureds and/or additional insureds, and the claimant’s counsel is only willing to release one insured and/or additional insured for the insurer’s available policy limits.
Andrew Tobin, a member of the Global Insurance Department in the London office, writes in Property Casualty 360 about the Military Coup in Thailand.
Samantha Evans discusses The Potential Liabilities and Insurance Coverage Implications of Solar Panels in Claims Journal. Samantha writes, “Solar panels are quickly becoming a fixture in our everyday lives. Whether driving down a country road or the busiest highway, you will see solar panels dotting the roofs of commercial buildings and residential homes alike. Comprised of photovoltaic cells, solar panels harness and convert the sun’s energy into usable electricity otherwise generated by the use of oil, coal and “dirtier” fossil fuels. Solar panels offer an attractive, alternative “green” source of energy for eco-conscious individuals and businesses.” To read the whole article, click here.
Litigation over challenges to corporate mergers has swelled in recent years, exposing directors, officers and their D&O insurers to large amounts of defense costs and potentially great liability. The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued an opinion analyzing and explaining the various standards by which courts review challenges to director decision-making in the merger context, which provides a thorough summary for all interested parties.
Last week, the Washington Court of Appeals held that “in an insurance bad faith case, the amount of a reasonable covenant judgment sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the damages the jury may award.” Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co., No. 68594-5-1. The claim arose out of an automobile accident in 2000, when Patrick Kenny, the at-fault driver, rear-ended a cement truck, severely injuring his three passengers.
In Protection Strategies, Inc. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia allowed an insurer to recoup more than $670,000 in costs paid for the insured first to respond to government subpoenas and then for the insured and its key employees to defend themselves against claims for governmental fraud and conspiracy.
In Betzdolt v. Auto Club Group Insurance Company, a Michigan resident was allowed to proceed with a bad faith claim against her insurer in Florida, even though the insurer did not sell policies in Florida, did not deliver policies in Florida, and was not authorized to write insurance policies in Florida. Betzdolt arises in the context of a third-party liability case (car accident) in which the Michigan resident was being defended by the Michigan insurer in Florida.
In BSC Holding, Inc. et al. v. Lexington Ins. Co., — Fed.Appx. –, 2014 WL 929194 (10th Cir., March 11, 2014), the Tenth Circuit recently underscored how difficult it can be for an insurer to demonstrate prejudice as a result of late notice.
On February 21, 2014, a New York state trial court judge ruled that Zurich American Insurance Company has no duty to defend the Sony Corporation in lawsuits relating to a 2011 cyberattack on its PlayStation network. This decision is among the first in the country to address coverage issues for large scale data security breaches. Judge Jeffrey Oing rendered an immediate decision after hearing oral argument, recognizing the issue’s importance and the likelihood of an appeal.
Jonathan Toren of the Global Insurance Department is co-author of Chapter 14, “Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions,” in The Reference Handbook on the Commercial General Liability Policy, Second Edition. In the commercial insurance industry, the commercial general liability (CGL) policy is the most common form of liability insurance purchased by both public and private sectors throughout the United States and, as a result, is arguably the most litigated insurance product in the marketplace. This book is a survey of the current developments and issues that can arise from a liability policy.
In Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States, No. 13-0109 (ABJ), 2014 WL 462886 (D.D.C. 2014), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that a foreign reinsurer was not subject to excise tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 4371 when purchasing retrocessional coverage for the assumed reinsurance of U.S. risks. While foreign reinsurance contracts are subject to excise tax, the court held that Section 4371’s plain language did not encompass retrocessional reinsurance transactions.
The unrest in the Ukraine between the protesters demanding the resignation of their President, Yanukovich fleeing the country and a warrant for his arrest situations are changing quickly and unexpectedly. This has proven to be a challenge for insurers to apply their policy terms to each loss.
In a cutting-edge decision, the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an exclusion barring coverage for an insured’s liability for “disgorgement” of “remuneration” or “advantage” is limited to “acquiring” funds as opposed to “retaining” funds. William Beaumont Hospital v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 13-1468, 2014 WL 185388 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2014). The Beaumont decision is the first of its kind and, if followed by other courts, narrowly circumscribes the scope of disgorgement exclusions that are typically included in errors and omissions and directors and officers liability policies.
On 21 November 2013 protesters gathered in central Kiev to demand the resignation of President Yanukovich and his government following his sudden decision not to sign an Association and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. By the end of January 2014 unrest had spread to other parts of Ukraine, leading to violent clashes, loss of life and damage to property.
Chile’s new insurance law comes into force on 1 December 2013. The new rules replace those deriving from the 1865 Civil Code. We have summarised the general features of the new law.
The Cozen O’Connor London ofis pleased to provide you with our 2013 Year In Review, a newsletter discussing select cases in insurance coverage, subrogation, dispute resolution and commercial matters.
On December 3, 2013, the intermediate Pennsylvania Court of Appeals decided Indalex, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, concluded that an “occurrence” under a commercial umbrella liability policy may arise in the context of defectively manufactured components used in a home, which resulted in alleged property damage and bodily injury. This holding is the first appellate level decision in Pennsylvania in recent years to find an insured occurrence in the context of claims by homeowners.
A Pennsylvania state judge denied Highmark Life Insurance Co.'s bid to vacate a $3.6 million arbitration award in favor of Elite Underwriting Services LLC, saying that the exclusion of testimony by the parties' reinsurance broker did not warrant a vacatur.
In 1911, Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the United States Supreme Court, unequivocally (if unknowingly) established the legal distinction between the secondary life market and what has become known as stranger originated life insurance (“STOLI”). The common law in both England and the United States long-abhorred insurance without an interest as a “mischievous kind of gaming” and so developed the insurable interest doctrine i.e., that an owner of a policy must have an interest in that insured. However, the application of the doctrine to specific cases involving the purchase of life insurance produced varied results throughout the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In Grigsby v. Russell, Justice Holmes established that a life insurance policy, once purchased in good faith, could subsequently be assigned or otherwise alienated by its rightful owner. Grigsby brought clear, manageable legal principles to nearly two centuries of inconsistent jurisprudence on the insurable interest doctrine, principles that were subsequently adopted by statute in all of the jurisdictions of the United States.
In Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling Savings Bank, et al., Wash. No. 87087-0 (October 3, 2013), the Washington Supreme Court held that a nonclient insurer may not pursue a malpractice claim against appointed defense counsel for failure to assert defenses favorable to the insurer, unless the insurer could show it was an intended beneficiary of the legal services provided by appointed defense counsel. The court reasoned that neither an alignment of interest between an insurer and policyholder nor appointed counsel’s duty to inform the carrier regarding case activity, equated to a duty of care owed by appointed defense counsel to the appointing insurer. The court declined to reach the parties’ equitable subrogation arguments that formed the basis of the actual legal malpractice claim.
On October 16, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., found that a former vice president and computer programmer was an “officer” of Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. (GSCo), and therefore eligible for advancement of legal fees and expenses for his ongoing defense in a New York state criminal case, even though the criminal action concerned the theft of confidential GSCo property. The decision provides an interesting lesson in the differences between indemnification and advancement and who may be considered an officer for purposes of awarding indemnity and advancement.
In Klutschkowski v. Peacehealth, et al., No. 160615518 (Ore., Sept. 26, 2013), the Oregon State Supreme Court unanimously held that an Oregon statute capping non-economic damages at $500,000 was unconstitutional as applied to a case asserting common law claims for injuries sustained by an infant during labor and delivery.
In a highly awaited decision, the California Supreme Court in Zhang v. Sup. Ct. of San Bernardino County considered whether insurance practices that violate the California Unfair Insurance Practices Act can give rise to a first-party cause of action under the California Unfair Competition Law.
On July 16, 2013, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (Philadelphia County) granted summary judgment to ACE American Insurance Company, upholding its denial of an insurance claim arising from False Claims Act litigation against AmerisourceBergen Co. Richard Mason of Cozen O’Connor was lead counsel for ACE American Insurance Company.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 Cal.4th 645, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 (1995), the California Supreme Court held that a “continuous trigger” applies to liability coverage for property damage claims arising out of pollution where the property damage is allegedly continuous or progressive.
In the recent decision of Schifino v. Geico General Ins. Co. et al., 2013 WL 2404115 (W.D.Pa. 2013), and for the second time in less than a year, the district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania precluded a plaintiff from offering expert testimony supporting an insurer’s alleged bad faith. The district court reasoned that expert testimony addressing the reasonableness of an insurer’s claims handling in denying a claim was unnecessary as a matter of evidence and interfered with the fact finding role of the jury.
On June 10, 2013, the governor of Oregon signed into law Senate Bill 814, creating sweeping reforms on environmental claims-handling regulations and available remedies for insureds facing liability for cleanup of contaminated property located in the state. The legislation is effective immediately.
Richard Mason, of the Global Insurance Department, discusses attorney-client privilege in Best's Review.
On May 7, 2013, a divided panel of the NY Court of Appeals issued an important opinion, in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2013 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03264 (May 7, 2013). The court affirmed, by a plurality, the Appellate Division’s ruling that at least one occurrence per year of abuse transpired under the policy wording at issue.
Jason Beckerman and Ryan Kearney of the New York Downtown office published an article in The New York Law Journal titled, “Accountability in Elevated Construction Accidents,” which discusses the traction to reform New York’s well-known scaffolding statute embodied in Labor Law § 240(1). Over the past two decades the law has evolved into a windfall for a small group of plaintiff’s attorneys, while simultaneously causing construction insurance premiums to skyrocket. With increased insurance costs real estate development in and around New York City has become limited, causing major developers to look to other states for development sites.
Angelo Savino, chair of the professional liability practice in Global Insurance, published an article in Best's Review addressing the issue of claims having decreased but D&O insurers face a potentially volatile underwriting landscape. To read the complete article click here.
In DRI’s For The Defense, Jonathan Toren of the Global Insurance Department is co-author of this article, “Retained Limits, Deductibles, and Self-Insurance. “ The last few years have been challenging for insurers and policyholders alike. As the economy has faltered and competitive pressures have increased, many companies have tried to restructure their insurance programs to reduce premium outlays. Insurers, meantime, have looked for ways to manage their limits more conservatively.
Angelo Savino, chair of the professional liability practice in Global Insurance, was quoted in Law 360’s article, “News Corp.’s $139M Deal May Make for Pricier D&O Coverage.” The article by Bibeka Shrestha discusses the record-breaking settlement by News Corp which has its insurers picking up the tab for the $139 million settlement that ends shareholder derivative litigation over its phone hacking scandal, likely sending other carriers scrambling to rethink the pricing and design of their directors and officers policies. Click here to read the full article and Angelo’s comments.
In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a class-action plaintiff may not avoid the effect of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) by “stipulating” he will not seek damages in excess of $5,000,000. CAFA provides that the federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction” over a civil “class action” if, among other things, the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (5). The statute further states that to “determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000,” the “claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated.” § 1332(d)(6).
Priority of rights of recovery of subrogating insured and its insured when making joint or separate claims against responsible third-party - Jurisdictions Comparative Chart - 5 pgs total, revised 6/2008. Table properties: INSURED WHOLE, PRO RATA, INSURER WHOLE, UNDECIDED, CITATION.
In Syracuse University v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 2012EF 63 (Sup. Ct., Onondaga County, January 29, 2013), the New York Supreme Court, County of Onondaga, held that an insured’s costs incurred in responding to subpoenas issued by state and federal agencies, were covered (as defense costs) as “Claims” made under a not-for-profit individual and organization insurance policy issued by National Union. The case arose out of allegations that a Syracuse assistant basketball coach, Bernie Fine, had sexually abused two former participants in Syracuse University’s basketball program over a period of years while serving in his capacity as the University’s assistant basketball coach.1 The court held that issuance of the subpoenas constituted a “Claim” as defined in the policy.
In D.R. Horton, Inc.—Denver v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., No. 12-cv-01080 (February 25, 2013), another U.S. District Court judge for the District of Colorado determined a liability insured seeking defense costs from its insurer may qualify as a “first-party claimant” for purposes of Colorado’s Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, potentially entitling the insured to recover unpaid defense costs, attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the recovery action and two times the unpaid defense costs as a penalty.
The Washington Supreme Court joined a minority of jurisdictions that hold that insurers may not unilaterally reserve the right to seek reimbursement for defense costs paid in defending non-covered claims through a reservation of rights letter. In National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp., the Washington Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, held that insurers defending under a reservation of rights may not seek reimbursement for defense costs from the insured, even if there is a determination that the insured is not entitled to coverage under the policy No. 86535-3 (March 7, 2013). In so holding, the court recognized that, upon a showing of actual and substantial prejudice resulting from an insured’s delayed tender, an insurer could minimize or avoid liability for defense costs.
When an insured sues an insurer for bad faith, how much of the claims file maintained by the insurer is discoverable? In a 5-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court recently weakened insurers’ ability to protect confidential communications with their attorneys in first-party claims where the insured has alleged bad faith. Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, No. 85366-5 (February 22, 2013). The court held that, in the context of a first-party claim for bad faith claim handling and processing, courts must apply a presumption that there is no applicable attorney-client privilege. The court further held that an insurer would be entitled to overcome the presumption by showing that its counsel was providing legal advice as to the insurer’s potential liability and was not acting in the insurer’s “quasi-fiduciary” function. Upon this showing, the insurer is entitled to an in camera review where the trial court will determine if the privilege applies, subject to the insured’s assertions that the privilege does not apply due to an exception, including the civil fraud exception.
In Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (Slip Op. Feb. 27, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority opinion (Ginsburg, J.), affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s ruling that a securities class action plaintiff need not prove materiality of alleged misrepresentations or misleading omissions as a prerequisite to class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Justice Alito concurred with the majority but added a separate and important note (discussed below). The Court’s decision lowers the bar for investors seeking to obtain class certification, which has significant implications for D&O insurers, companies, their Directors and Officers (Ds and Os), and securities fraud plaintiffs alike. The Court’s ruling in Amgen also settles a split among the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 9th Circuits. Although the ruling is clearly favorable to securities fraud class action plaintiffs, the four concurring and dissenting justices appear willing to entertain arguments over the continued validity of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, which could drastically alter the landscape for securities class actions.
Following considerable public comment, the Texas Supreme Court revised and issued final approval of new rules providing for expedited trials and dismissal of baseless claims. Despite pleas from various factions, however, the new rules maintain their mandatory nature. The revisions do, however, contain material changes to the Alternative Dispute Resolution provision of new Rule 169 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In a victory for liability insurers against the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar, the California Supreme Court ruled in Greb v. Diamond International Corp., that California’s statutory provision that a dissolved corporation continues to exist perpetually for purposes of being named as a defendant in a suit does not apply to dissolved foreign corporations. Instead, the law of the state of incorporation governs how long a foreign corporation can be sued after it is dissolved, even for suits by injured California residents. Diamond International Corporation was a dissolved Delaware corporation, and the Supreme Court held that the three-year Delaware survival statute barred an asbestos bodily injury suit in California filed more than three years after the corporation was dissolved under Delaware law. The practical effect is that the dissolved corporation’s insurers do not have any liability for suits filed more than three years after the Delaware dissolution, because the plaintiff cannot obtain a judgment against the insured necessary to bring a direct action against the liability insurer.
The examination under oath has long served as a valuable tool to prevent fraud and exaggeration in property insurance claims, while also keeping the cost of insurance as low as possible. The Washington Supreme Court, however, did insurance consumers no favor when it recently held, in an 8-1 decision, that an insured may substantially comply with an insurer's request for examination under oath (EUO), even where the insured never submitted to the requested EUO. Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 86413-6, Washington Supreme Court (Jan. 24, 2013). The court also held that an insurer must establish actual prejudice before denying a claim based on the insured's noncompliance with the EUO request. The court's decision is a departure from previous precedent.
Yearly, many oil pipelines fail, spill crude oil, and cause significant health and environmental damage all across the continental United States, leading to hefty financial implications for the oil companies, landowners, government, and insurers.
On January 15, 2013, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision with two justices dissenting, ruled that a so-called “floating home” which did not have self-propulsion and essentially consisted of a house-like plywood structure with French doors floating on an empty bilge space, did not come within the definition of a vessel under 1 U.S.C. § 3 and therefore was not subject to maritime law. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, docket 11-626, 568 US ___ (1/15/2013).
In Capitol Specialty Insurance v. JBC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 68129-0-1, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2835 (Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2012), the Washington Court of Appeals held a firearms exclusion in a commercial general liability (CGL) policy unambiguously excludes coverage for all claims arising from a nightclub shooting regardless of who used the firearm, including those claims characterized as pre-shooting negligence. The court distinguished the holding from those claims where there are allegations of post-shooting acts that lead to further injury or harm to the claimant.
Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Claims of Defective Workmanship Against A Builder Do Not Constitute An Occurrence Under A CGL Policy - Global Insurance Alert - On October 12, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Cort resolved a long-simmering conflict among Ohio's intermediate appellate courts by answering the following certified question: Are claims of defective construction/workmanship brought by a property owner claims for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under a commercial general liability policy?
of the world’s largest energy producers alleging damages caused by global warming. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.,No. 09-17490 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 21, 2012). Kivalina alleged that the barrier island on which the village is located is becoming uninhabitable.
Utah Court of Appeals Relies on Wikipedia to Determine Common Meaning of Term Used in Insurance Policy Exclusion - Global Insurance Alert - In Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltmanns, 2012 UT App 230 (2012),the court determined the term “jet ski” as used in an exclusion in a homeowner’s policy was ambiguous, based in part on a Wikipedia definition of the term.
Sixth Circuit Confirms that Cybercrime is Crime... and Finds Coverage - Global Insurance Alert - On August 28, 2012, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a groundbreaking decision that sent shock waves through the world of cyber-risk insurance.
Jonathan Toren of the Global Insurance Department authored this article in Law30 discussing Acticon V. China North East Petroleum. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that even if a stock recovers its value after dropping following a corrective disclosure, a showing of loss causation is not necessarily negated at the pleading stage in a claim for securities fraud, in Acticon AG, et al. v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 11-4544-cv (2nd Cir., August 1, 2012).
The Broad Scope of Contractual Liability Exclusions in D&O Policies - Global Insurance Alert - On August 17, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in Federal Insurance Co. v. KDW Restructuring & Liquidation Services LLC et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01357, held that Federal Insurance Company does not have a duty to defend or to indemnify its insured, Uni-Marts, LLC, under a D&O policy for claims arising out of Uni-Marts’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions to gas station purchasers.
Forwarding (USA), Inc., No. 11-12879, 2012 WL 2369166 (11th Cir. June 25, 2012).
California Supreme Court Adopts "All-Sums-With Stacking" Rule Disapproves FMC Corp. v. Plaisted In The Process - Global Insurance Alert - In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that in cases of continuous or progressive property damage, each insurer, including excess insurers, on the risk at any point when damage occurred is liable for indemnity up to its policy limit if its policy contains “all sums” language.
On June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Company, Nos. S11S1681, S11G1683, 2012 WL2217040 (Ga. June 18, 2012), dramatically changing Georgia's ''Reservation of Rights'' law. In short, Hoover held insurers may no longer disclaim coverage under a specific policy provision, while reserving the right to do so under others. Id. at *3. The court held that a carrier waives coverage defenses that do not form the basis of the claim denial. Id. According to Hoover, a carrier cannot ''both deny a claim outright and attempt to reserve the right to assert a different defense in the future.'' Id. at *2.
Washington Court Concludes Umbrella Insurer Has a Duty to Defend Suit Against Insured Even Though Underlying Primary Insurer Similarly Has a Duty to Defend - Global Insurance Alert - In a surprising unpublished decision, the Washington State Court of Appeals recently ruled that an umbrella insurer had a duty to defend a suit against its insured despite the fact the underlying primary insurer had also previously been found to have a duty to defend the same parties in the same suit.
Exhaustion Implications for Multi-Policy Settlements - Global Insurance Alert - In JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4627 (N.Y. App. Div. June 12, 2012), the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, applying Illinois law, affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of certain upper-level excess insurers, agreeing that the insured failed to prove that certain underlying policies had been properly exhausted.
Maximus Opinion Permits Functional Exhaustion of Underlying Insurance - Global Insurance Alert - Excess insurers should carefully note both trends in the law, and particular policy language, that may potentially influence whether their policyholders can exhaust underlying policies without actually receiving payment of the full underlying limits. In its recent opinion in Maximus, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, No. 11-CV-1231, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia determined that an ambiguously worded follow-form excess policy permitted this result.
Confidentiality Agreements and Standstill Provisions; the Delaware Chancery Court Broadly Construes Confidentiality Agreements and Enjoins a Hostile Bid Despite the Absence of Standstill Provisions Relating to Stock Transactions - Global Insurance Alert - In a significant recent decision, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Company, the Delaware Chancery Court reiterated the preference of Delaware courts to enforce confidentiality agreements and to construe them broadly as a matter of public policy.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 862
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 240
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.