Although the French class action system has gotten off to a slow start with only 6 actions initiated to date, the recently and anticipated expanded scope of the French class action system will impact the potential liability and insurance coverage of corporations domiciled and doing business in France. To learn more about the implications of the Expanded Scope of the French Class Action System read our full alert on this topic by clicking here.
The deadline for submitting documentation to establish “closed” or “liquidated” claims in the Lumbermens Liquidation has been extended to November 10, 2017. To learn more about this important deadline extension, read our full alert on this topic by clicking here.
On November 8, 2016, the District Court in the District of Massachusetts held that AIG has a duty to defend Bill Cosby against pending defamation claims under both Massachusetts and California law. The court rejected AIG’s contention that the defamation claims fall within the exclusion for sexual misconduct since they were “arising out of” claimants’ original allegations of sexual misconduct. Instead, the court found the exclusion was at least ambiguous in the context of these defamation claims and, therefore, a duty defend is owed.
It is generally well known that William H. Cosby, Jr., (known familiarly in his comedy and acting career as Bill Cosby), has been accused on a number of occasions of sexual misconduct many years ago. Cosby has denied the allegations in public statements issued personally and through representatives.
Based upon these denials, three defamation cases were filed against Cosby and others in the District Court of Massachusetts. Green v. Cosby, Case No. 14-cv-30211, Ruehli v. Cosby, Case No. 15-cv-13796, and McKee v. Cosby, Case No. 15-cv-30221. Cosby sought coverage for the defamation claims under a Massachusetts homeowners policy (“Homeowner’s Policy”) and a personal excess liability policy (“Excess Policy”), both purchased from AIG. The policies cover claims alleging personal injury, which is defined to include “[d]efamation, libel or slander” emotional distress. While the Homeowner’s Policy includes a duty to pay defense costs, the Excess Policy includes a duty to defend. Both policies exclude actions “arising out of” sexual misconduct, harassment or abuse. Continue Reading
The October 21, 2016 DDoS attack on the internet’s domain name system infrastructure underscores the need to consider cyberliability insurance coverage as a critical component of your company’s security and privacy breach response plan, and if your company carries cyberliability insurance, to ensure that your coverage will respond to a network business interruption, security breach or privacy event against or within your company or its vendors. To read more, please click here.
A California appeals court recently sharpened the teeth of insurance companies’ duty to settle [Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 159]. By broadening the situations in which an insurer can be held liable for failing to settle within limits to include cases that never go to verdict or judgment, this ruling protects policyholders from unreasonable insurer decision-making without forcing them into risky trials. With a clear split among the California Appellate Divisions, this issue is now ripe for Supreme Court review.
On the set of Warner Bros.’ superhero film “Green Lantern,” a stunt gone wrong injured a special effects supervisor, who then sued Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and related entities to recover damages for his injuries. Warner Bros. had a $2 million primary policy and $3 million umbrella policy with Fireman’s Fund, and an excess policy of $50 million with Ace American to respond to the accident. Continue Reading
Following on from our previous alert on the Insurance Act 2015 and the key advantages it offers to policyholders of commercial insurance, we have prepared a second alert looking at what might constitute the knowledge of the insured for the purpose of complying with the duty to make a fair presentation, and the possibility of contracting out from the provisions of the new Act. The Act is now in force in England and Wales, so it is definitely worthwhile to make sure you’re aware of the major changes introduced in the Act and how they might affect your business.
Please click here to read the full alert.
The Insurance Act 2015 (the Act) came into force on 12 August 2016, introducing major changes in English law in relation to insurance and all forms of reinsurance.
It applies to all contracts of insurance and reinsurance governed by English law entered into after 12 August 2016. This includes renewals, amendments and endorsements to existing contracts.
Many articles and commentary have been published dealing with the new Act. Here, we wanted to draw the attention of those responsible for the purchase of insurance and reinsurance to the application of this new Act so that the key advantages it offers to policyholders are not overlooked in the course of upcoming insurance placements, amendments and renewals. The three areas discussed below are worthy of particular note: disclosure, warranties, and basis of contract clauses.
A California district court pushed back on the restrictive interpretation of a standard intellectual property exclusion and found coverage for a policyholder’s patent related lawsuit. The United States District Court (Northern District of California) recently ruled that claims asserting (1) the breach of a patent license agreement and (2) patent misuse were covered under a commercial insurance policy, and not subject to the policy’s intellectual property exclusion. Moreover, the court found that the mere fact that claims are related to assertions of infringement does not preclude coverage unless the claims assert injuries as a result of that infringement.
The Underlying Action
Policyholder Tessera initiated an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, accusing several companies of infringing its patents by importing and selling semiconductor packages. Several of these companies were customers of Powertech Technology Inc. (PTI), a company that had obtained a license agreement from Tessera. In December 2011, PTI sued Tessera on several claims and defenses relating to Tessera’s ITC investigation, including breach of the licensing agreement, fraud and deceit, and patent misuse. In February 2012, Tessera tendered the defense and immunity of these claims under three commercial insurance policies issued by St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. (St. Paul), which accepted the tender of defense under a full reservation of rights, but disputed coverage. After initial motion practice, Tessera and PTI resolved the action by settlement.
The Coverage Action
In April 2012, St. Paul initiated an action for declaratory relief against Tessera, claiming that the standard intellectual property exclusion in its policy excluded from coverage the claims asserted against Tessera. The exclusion at issue bars coverage for: “injury or damage or medical expenses that result from any actual or alleged infringement or violation of any of the following rights or laws: […] Patent…Other intellectual property rights or laws….” The exclusion also bars coverage for “any other injury or damage or medical expenses alleged in a claim or suit that also alleges any such infringement or violation.” Continue Reading
What does it mean to call a fire “hostile”? This question has become increasingly important for insurance policyholders, such as those seeking coverage for fires and explosions following crude-by-rail or chemical-by-rail accidents.
When an explosion or fire event results in death, personal injuries or property damage, insurance companies may rely on a pollution exclusion. These exclusions may contain important exceptions, however, for “hostile fires”…
Read more at Railway Age…
The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, recently rejected an attempt to apply the “common interest doctrine,” an exception to the general rule that communicating privileged information to a third party waives the attorney-client privilege, to situations where separately represented parties communicate attorney-client privileged information in connection with transactions or other circumstances other than in anticipation of litigation. Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 80, 2016 WL 3188989 (N.Y. June 9, 2016). As this case shows, companies should be mindful of what information they share outside the litigation context, because the common interest doctrine may not be available to protect that information.