Photo of John Vishneski

John Vishneski

Subscribe to John Vishneski's Posts
Contact:Read more about John Vishneski

Although the policyholder bar has previously had success obtaining coverage for Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) litigation under an employment practices liability (EPL) policy, insurers recently notched a win by convincing a court to deny EPL coverage for an employee-based BIPA class action.  In Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Prairie Village Supportive Living, LLC, the insured’s former employee brought a class action alleging the insured unlawfully collected, used, and disseminated employee biometric identifiers (fingerprints) in violation of BIPA, and the insured sought coverage from its insurer under its general liability (GL) and EPL policies.  No. 21 C 3752, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143495 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2022).  Based on a unique combination of policy provisions not previously addressed in BIPA coverage litigation, the court declined to find coverage under either policy.  Rather than be discouraged from pursuing coverage for BIPA class actions involving employee biometrics, however, there are some important lessons policyholders can glean from this opinion.

The unique terms of the insured’s EPL policy precluded coverage under all policies

The combination of policy terms at issue in Church Mutual was quite unique and does not appear to be typical of those found in most insureds’ policies.  As an initial matter, although the insured had purchased both GL and EPL coverage, the EPL coverage form stated:  “Except for the insurance provided by this coverage form, the policy to which this coverage form is attached does not apply to any claim or ‘suit’ seeking damages arising out of any ‘wrongful employment practice.’”  Right off the bat, therefore, the insured was limited to seeking EPL coverage because it did not dispute that it was seeking coverage for a “wrongful employment practice” as defined in its EPL policy.  Any coverage that may have existed under the insured’s GL policy was irrelevant.

After limiting its analysis to whether EPL coverage existed, the court then focused on an exclusion in the EPL policy entitled “Violation of Laws Applicable to Employers.” Pursuant to that exclusion, the policy precluded coverage for, in relevant part:

“Any claim based on, attributable to, or arising out of any violation of any insured’s responsibilities or duties required by any other federal, state, or local statutes, rules, or regulations, and any rules or regulations promulgated therefor or amendments thereto. However this exclusion does not apply to: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 or to any rules or regulations promulgated under any of the foregoing and amendments thereto or any similar provisions of any federal, state, or local law.”Continue Reading Court’s denial of employment liability coverage for Biometric Information Privacy Act litigation should not discourage policyholders

Do not assume insurance coverage is unavailable  

Today’s insurance market is complex.  It encompasses a wide range of insurance policies covering all manner of events and circumstances.  Beyond more traditional coverage for personal injury or property damage (under commercial general liability (CGL) policies), companies now routinely purchase Directors & Officers (D&O) policies, Errors & Omissions (E&O) policies, and Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policies, among others.  These policies can cover everything from claims of wrongful termination (EPL) to breach of contract (E&O) to shareholder class actions (D&O).  Further, many CGL policies are “occurrence” based.  This means that if the loss occurred during the policy period, the policy may provide coverage even if the claim is not made until decades later (presuming you recently learned about the loss).  Accordingly, when you or your company faces a lawsuit, never assume insurance coverage is unavailable.

Immediately notice the claim to all relevant insurers 

Beyond identifying potential coverage under existing policies, it is important to promptly place the insurers on notice of the lawsuit.  A failure to give timely notice could result in a waiver of coverage.  Many policies require the insured to give notice “as soon as practicable” or even “immediately” after learning about the occurrence (e.g., accident harming another’s person or property) or claim (e.g., a lawsuit).  These policies often treat delayed notice as a breach of a condition precedent to providing coverage under the policy.  The insurer will likely then deny coverage based on this breach.  While most jurisdictions require an insurer to show prejudice from a delayed notice of an occurrence, claim or suit, some do not.  Providing prompt notice avoids what could be a costly dispute, especially if the insurers succeeds in avoiding coverage.  Therefore, even where you believe a lawsuit will resolve quickly, it is still imperative to give timely notice (and, thereby, avoid forfeiting the coverage purchased).  Continue Reading You’ve been sued: An insurance attorney’s top tips for securing (and preserving) coverage

It’s no secret that businesses of all shapes and sizes have suffered tremendous losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. From closures to the “Great Resignation” to ever-changing consumer demands, businesses have dealt with one problem after another. One of those problems is the denial of insurance coverage under  “all risk” commercial property policies. For the last two years, courts across the country have found in favor of insurers, ruling that SARS-CoV-2, the virus underlying the COVID-19 pandemic, does not cause physical damage to property.

Enter Marina Pacific Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 608 (2nd Dist. 2022), a case in which the California Appellate Court looked beyond the preliminary question of whether SARS-CoV-2 causes damage to property and got back to legal basics in its analysis of the plaintiffs’ complaint. With Marina Pacific Hotel, policyholders landed a major victory, and the case may provide a winning framework for plaintiff-insureds facing similar legal battles in the future.

The Marina Pacific Hotel Case

The policy at issue in Marina Pacific Hotel contained much of the standard coverage language which has been heavily debated over the last two years, namely, that the insurer will pay for “direct physical loss or damage” caused by or resulting from a covered cause of loss. This language has proven problematic for policyholders dealing with COVID-19 losses as judges have been reluctant to find that a virus physically alters property when viewed through the lens of what is traditionally considered “property damage.”

However, the Marina Pacific Hotel plaintiffs set out detailed allegations of physical damage, including the fact that SARS-CoV-2 can bond with the surfaces of objects it touches altering the cells and surface proteins of that object. Like insurers around the country, Fireman’s Fund argued that SARS-CoV-2 cannot physically damage property, and that the insured’s loss of use of a piece of property does not constitute physical damage.Continue Reading Looking beyond “Physical Damage to Property”: Is Marina Pacific Hotel a winning framework for policyholders?

Pet insurance is becoming a popular choice for pet owners, fueled by an increase in pet ownership during the pandemic, advancements in veterinary medicine, and a growing recognition that pets (or “companion animals”) are members of the family. Although the pet insurance industry is accelerating at a record pace, many owners have been irritated by the claims process and the surprising lack of sufficient coverage. To address some of these concerns, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is working on a proposed model law that may offer better protection to owners and ensure a consistent regulatory framework among states.

The basics of pet insurance coverage

Pet insurance is a unique product. Although it contains many elements of human health insurance, it is considered a type of property and casualty insurance. On the marketplace, an owner generally has three coverage options: (1) accident only, (2) accident and illness (the most popular), or (3) accident, illness, and wellness (preventive).

The first pet insurance policy in the United States was issued by Veterinary Pet Insurance (now Nationwide) in 1982 for the famous TV dog, Lassie. Nearly 40 years later in 2021, the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) reported that pet insurers collected $2.6 billion in premiums – 88% of which came from policies insuring dogs. And, insurers are not just collecting; they are paying some significant claims. The highest paid claim in 2021 was $50,602 for a 5-year old terrier mix in New York who was hit by a car.

Major concerns

The largest drawback of currently available policies is that they all exclude coverage for “pre-existing conditions.” This exclusion may mean that conditions diagnosed or treated in a particular coverage period would be excluded in a subsequent policy period, to the surprise of many owners. For example, one insurer denied a claim for a dog’s hospitalization after swallowing a stuffed animal, citing the dog’s “pre-existing condition” for eating objects. Policies also generally exclude coverage for hereditary conditions and may require a month-long waiting period before coverage even kicks in.

Some pet insurers have also been the subject of consumer fraud claims. One pet insurance broker was the subject of a class action lawsuit in 2020 for its violation of various states’ consumer protection laws because it allegedly misrepresented the basis for changes to an insured’s monthly premiums – some of which increased nearly 200% over a certain period. In addition, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner in Washington found that two insurers, ACE American Insurance Company and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (Chubb), overcharged consumers through rate increases and did not disclose the increases to their customers. It ordered the companies to repay $4.7 million – including interest – to policyholders.Continue Reading Pet insurance: Proposed model rules may afford better protection to paw-licyholders

Since the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling that class actions alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) trigger general liability coverage, the focus of BIPA coverage litigation has shifted to the applicability of three exclusions often found in general liability policies: (1) the Employment Related Practices exclusion, (2) the Violation of Statutes exclusion, and (3) the Access or Disclosure exclusion.  Although the first quarter of 2022 brought a mixed bag of opinions, with four out of seven resulting in a finding of coverage, the scorecard with respect to each specific exclusion tells a different story that generally favors the policyholders.  As outlined in this blog post, insureds facing BIPA lawsuits therefore have plenty of reason to continue pressing their insurers for coverage.

Employment-related practices exclusions

The Employment-Related Practices exclusion bars coverage for bodily injury or personal and advertising injury to a person arising out of any of the following:

  • Refusal to employ that person
  • Termination of that person’s employment
  • Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, or discrimination directed at that person

In coverage disputes arising out of employment-based BIPA class actions, the issue is whether the conduct at issue is an employment-related practice that falls within the third prong of the exclusion.

As outlined in a previous blog post, there is case law outside of the BIPA context standing for the proposition that the phrase “employment-related” has a narrow meaning and only refers to matters that concern the employment relationship itself. According to this line of case law, where the conduct at issue in a lawsuit does not arise out of personnel management or employee discipline (i.e., the employment relationship), but instead merely happens to involve an employee, the third prong of the exclusion does not bar coverage.Continue Reading Recent opinions provide support for insureds seeking coverage for BIPA claims

When acquiring another entity, many companies purchase representations and warranties (R&W) insurance to cover losses due to breaches of representations and warranties in purchase agreements. These R&W policies may apply in excess of a seller indemnity or, if the acquired entity has been resold, there may be separate lines of coverage for multiple acquisition agreements that apply to one breach. So, what happens after the deal closes and the purchaser discovers a breach?

  •  R&W policies cover both first-party and third-party claims

First-party claims involve issues that are discovered by the buyer after the closing that result in losses. Examples of such breaches include:
• An audit of a company’s records revealing financial or reporting issues.
• The company’s manufacturing equipment not performing to the standards warranted.
• Relations with customers not being as warranted or the buyer discovering breaches of contracts.

Third-party claims arise when a third party makes a demand or files suit against the company. For example, after closing, the company is served with a customer complaint alleging breach of contract and inference with business relations. A review of the company’s files indicates that prior to the sale, the sellers had been notified by the customer of its potential claim but did not disclose it to the buyer. This may be a breach of representations regarding contracts and litigation or claims. Another example of a third-party claim is a government civil or criminal investigation into the company.

Best practices: After a deal closes, calendar any dates for releases of escrows or limitations periods. Have periodic check-ins, three to six months prior to the calendared date, to determine whether there are any breaches that may result in a covered loss.Continue Reading Representations and warranties insurance: I have a breach; what’s next?

In West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that coverage existed for a class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) under the terms of a general liability policy. Although a win for the policyholder bar, the precedential value of Krishna was arguably limited by the fact that the underlying class action targeted the insured’s use of customer biometrics. Where the use of employee biometrics is at issue instead, policyholders are likely to face unique coverage issues left open by Krishna, such as the applicability of certain exclusions that bar coverage for injuries arising out of the employment relationship. This blog post provides a brief overview of the employment-related practices (ERP) exclusion and explains why it should not apply to preclude coverage for employment-based BIPA class actions.

Employment-related practices exclusions

The ERP exclusion is a common provision in commercial general liability policies. As it is usually drafted, the exclusion bars coverage for bodily injury or personal and advertising injury to a person arising out of any of the following:

  • Refusal to employ that person
  • Termination of that person’s employment
  • Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, or discrimination directed at that person

In coverage disputes arising out of employment-based BIPA class actions, the issue will be whether the conduct at issue is an employment-related practice that falls within the third prong of the exclusion.

Case law analyzing employment-related practices exclusions

Several courts that have analyzed the scope of the ERP exclusion have concluded that it should be interpreted narrowly. For instance, in Peterborough Oil Co. v. Great American Insurance Co., after the insured fired an employee for theft and pressed charges, the employee sued the insured for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 397 F. Supp. 2d 230, 234 (D. Mass. 2005). The insured tendered the lawsuit under its commercial general liability policy, and the insurer denied coverage in reliance on the policy’s ERP exclusion. Id. at 235. The insured filed a coverage action and argued that the exclusion did not apply. Id.Continue Reading Employment-related practices exclusions and Biometric Information Privacy Act litigation

Part II: exclusions, considerations, filing a claim, and tips

This is the second part of a two-part blog series titled, “Music to my ears: Insurance coverage for musical instruments”. Part I covers policy options.

Professional and amateur musicians alike can purchase insurance to cover their instruments.

Musical instrument policies are subject to exclusions and requirements, which may vary. Requirements under the policy are another important component.

Exclusions

Some common exclusions in musical instrument coverage include:

  • Wear and tear, inherent defect, deterioration, and vermin damage.
  • Breakage of strings, reeds, or drumheads while the instrument is being played.
  • Neglect, such as the failure to maintain or properly store the instrument.
  • Loss or damage during maintenance, repair, or restoration.
  • Humidity, aridity, or temperature extremes (unless caused by storm or fire); condensation; dampness; frost; dust; effects of sunlight; fading; and changes in color, texture, or finish.
  • The cost to obtain an estimate or quote to replace or repair the musical instrument.
  • Damage or loss while the instrument is in an unattended vehicle (though cover may be obtained, sometimes limited by the night-time clause, excluding coverage for loss or damage of instruments left in a car between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. There may be no coverage without forced entry).
  • Transit by air, postal, or other delivery transit.
  • Costs as a result of being unable to use the musical instrument (which may be covered by business income loss coverage under a commercial policy).
  • Unexplained disappearance.
  • Intentional damage.
  • Damage due to pollutants.
  • Governmental or military action, war, and terrorism (though cover for terrorism may be purchased from some carriers as an endorsement for an additional premium).
  • Nuclear hazard.

Some exclusions may include anti-concurrent causation language, precluding coverage when the excluded cause of loss is involved, whether there are other causes or not. In particular, the nuclear hazard, war and military action, and pollution coverages may be excluded regardless of whether any other covered cause of loss is also present.

Other considerations

  • Valuation issues

Insurance carriers providing agreed value coverage require an appraisal for valuation purposes when they issue and/or renew a policy. Appraisals should be reviewed at renewal time, and they should be updated at least every three years. If the instrument is extremely rare, insurers may request their own appraiser prior to issuing coverage.

The value of the insured instruments may be determined at the time of loss or damage, even though an appraisal was required at the time of placement. The insurer may force the insured into arbitration or litigation regarding valuation. If your instrument is more than three years old, the policy should include new for old cover so you can get full replacement value.Continue Reading Music to my ears: Coverage considerations for musical instrument insurance (Part II of II)

Part I: Policy options

This is the first part of a two-part blog series titled, “Music to my ears: Insurance coverage for musical instruments”. Part II covers exclusions, considerations, filing a claim, and tips.

Musical instruments can cost significant sums running from a few hundred or thousand dollars to a million dollars or more. And that is to say nothing of the special bond musicians have with their instruments (the authors are both amateur musicians, and when the violist even thinks her viola has been bumped while in its case, she feels as though her own person has suffered injury). Professional and amateur musicians, as well as collectors of highly valued or rare instruments, may require or desire insurance to protect their instruments from loss or damage.

Instrument insurance covers the instrument, and usually covers accessories like bows, sheet music, cases, bags, and stands, unless specifically excluded. High-value accessories should be individually listed on the policy.

Musicians may need coverage if the instrument is used routinely for performances or teaching, or if it travels to school, work, lessons, rehearsals, or concerts. Collectors with expensive and rare instruments may want coverage. Professional musicians may need a commercial musical instrument policy (discussed below) to limit the time they spend without their instrument if it needs repair, if they need to rent a temporary instrument while repairs are made or if they need to purchase a new instrument.

Musical instrument coverage can be customized, with policyholders choosing the amount of coverage they need and the amount of the deductible. Musical instrument carriers, which may be specialty insurers, frequently divide instruments into categories, and coverage may also include electronic instruments, recording equipment, and electronic gear.

Some policies have a maximum amount they will insure per instrument. Commercial musical instrument policies provide several valuation options, such as payment for a claim based on an agreed-upon value determined when the policy is placed, the instrument’s value, or its replacement value at the time of loss.

Coverage counsel can assist with placement, review, and renewal for musicians, collectors, and ensembles, and if valuation or coverage disputes arise in the event the unthinkable occurs.

Musical instrument coverage for amateur musicians

Amateur musicians are those who play a musical instrument (or several), but who do not receive compensation for playing the instrument, including people learning to play an instrument, and those who play as a hobby alone or in a group. A musician who makes any income from his or her playing is not an amateur for coverage purposes and may require business insurance.

Some homeowner’s or renter’s policies cover musical instruments, but they are subject to some limitations. Frequently, they contain limits for the home’s total property damage and may have applicable per-item limits or sub-limits for musical instruments, which may be lower than the musical instrument’s value. Many only cover damages occurring while the instrument is in the covered residence. Even when there is off-premises coverage, that amount is limited to 10 percent of the policy’s dwelling coverage limit, which may not cover the loss. Homeowner’s and renter’s policies only cover damage from “named perils” such as fire and theft, but not for unnamed perils. Typically, such policies only provide actual cost value, so it can be difficult to receive compensation for the instrument’s replacement value.Continue Reading Music to my ears: Coverage considerations for musical instrument insurance (Part I of II)