Key Take-aways
In this post, we take a look at an insurer’s right to subrogation – the mechanism that allows them to step into the shoes of the insured – and how, in particular circumstances, that right can be restricted.
We look first at how subrogation applies where there are joint or co-insureds, depending on the specifics
In 1942, the Luftwaffe dropped a 1000kg high-explosive bomb onto farmland in the outskirts of Exeter.
Some 82 years later, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the University of Exeter’s appeal against the High Court decision in Allianz Insurance Plc v University of Exeter (see our previous commentary) The Judge at first instance (HHJ Bird) had found that damage to halls of residence caused by the bomb’s controlled detonation was not covered under the University’s insurance policy with Allianz.Continue Reading A blast from the past – unearthed: Court of Appeal dismisses University of Exeter’s appeal
Online retailers have changed the way we shop. No longer do we spend hours in line queuing for a can opener or, perhaps more appropriately in current times, an air fryer. Nowadays, at the click of a button, we have items expeditiously delivered straight to our door. And soon, it will be straight to our door without a human touch.
Last year, certain retailers began trialling drone delivery, marking the dawn of a new era of deliveries.
This latest development is one the insurance market cannot ignore. The drone insurance market is growing, and it looks like it will continue to do so as technology develops and retailers rely on drones to deliver parcels.Continue Reading Delivery by drone? Insurance needed!
The “Four Corners rule” (a.k.a. the “Eight Corners rule”) is the foundation for many states’ common law regarding the Duty to Defend under liability policies. Under that regime, the court treats “the underlying complaint and the insurance policy” as “the only documents relevant” to deciding whether an insurer owes the policyholder a duty to defend. Badger Mining Corp. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 534 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1020 (W.D. Wis. 2021); 1 General Liability Insurance Coverage § 5.02 (5th ed.) (providing a “50-State Survey: Duty to Defend Standard: ‘Four Corners’ or Extrinsic Evidence?”).
The rule presents a problem for policyholders when the complaint’s allegations do not raise a duty to defend on their face, however, during the course of the litigation, it becomes apparent that claims that do give rise to a duty to defend are, in fact, at issue. If the case is pending in federal court, policyholders can assert the “constructive amendment doctrine”; that is, that the complaint has been effectively amended to include the unpleaded claims and, therefore, the insurance company should provide a defense.Continue Reading Expanding the “Four Corners” rule through constructive amendment
On December 29, 2023, an Arkansas court in the case of Walmart, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 04CV-22-2835-4, 2023 WL 9067386, (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2023) found that defendant insurers owe Walmart a duty to pay or reimburse defense costs that Walmart incurred while defending prescription opioid liability lawsuits.
Like many in the pharmaceutical supply chain, Walmart is a defendant in thousands of lawsuits filed by state and local government entities acting in their parens patriae capacity. These lawsuits allege that Walmart knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused bodily injuries, like addiction, death, and property damage, by failing to monitor, detect and report suspicious orders of prescription opioids. In 2022, Walmart entered into a “National Settlement” that resolved many of those governmental suits. The settlement reimbursed costs the government plaintiffs alleged they incurred for treating its citizens’ bodily injury and property damage. Walmart sought defense and indemnity coverage from AIG and other insurance companies providing excess coverage under its general liability policies. The insurers denied coverage.Continue Reading A win for Walmart! An Arkansas court finds insurers have a duty to defend certain prescription opioid liability lawsuits
Navigating the complex landscape of California’s insurance regulations, particularly when dealing with non-admitted insurers, is a challenge many policyholders face. At the heart of the non-admitted insurer challenge lies a powerful but underutilized tool: The Unauthorized Insurers Process Act, codified at California Insurance Code Section 1610, et seq. Section 1616, is a key component of the Act and yet is often overlooked by policyholders faced with a coverage dispute involving a non-admitted insurer.
Admitted versus non-admitted insurers in California
An “admitted” or “licensed” insurer is an insurance company that must file its rates with the Department of Insurance (“DOI”) and is required to participate in the California Insurance Guarantee Association (“CIGA”). In the event that an admitted insurer becomes insolvent, CIGA is supposed to step in and pay covered claims, subject to various statutory limitations.
Conversely, a “non-admitted” or “surplus lines” insurer is allowed to conduct business in California but is not required to file its rates with the DOI and is not a member of CIGA. By not filing rates with the DOI, non-admitted insurers sometimes have more flexibility in the coverage offered and the prices charged. The DOI maintains a List of Approved Surplus Lines Insurers (“LASLI”) that has met certain capitalization requirements, but the DOI also permits non-U.S. domiciled alien insurers to issue coverage in California that has not met those standards. Thus, the financial strength and stability of a non-admitted insurer can sometimes be significant issues.Continue Reading Empowering policyholders: Forcing non-admitted insurers to post a bond before answering a complaint
Increased litigation alleging exposure to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) present potential significant losses for companies in a wide range of industries. PFAS are a group of chemicals commonly used in consumer products and manufacturing applications. After health studies linked PFAS exposure to adverse health impacts, there has been increased regulatory attention and significant litigation. The risks from this litigation to companies that manufactured or sold PFAS-containing products is manifest. And with that increased litigation risk, so too, the need to secure insurance coverage has grown. As is often the case, the ability to secure coverage for PFAS-related claims will depend on the specific facts and language of the policies at issue. Through this post, we identify several of the coverage issues associated with these claims.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are chemicals commonly used in manufacturing, industrial and consumer products such as food packaging, nonstick cook-wear, and cosmetics. PFAS have been used since the 1940s and are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” due to how long they take to degrade naturally. Because of their popularity, PFAS are found virtually everywhere, including in drinking water, household products, personal care products, and soil and groundwater near waste sites. And because they are slow to break down, PFAS can build up in people and the environment over time. According to the EPA, research suggests that exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes. See Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. Continue Reading Insurance coverage implications for PFAS-related liabilities
At least since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Buss v. Superior Court, 939 P.2d 766 (Cal. 1997), insurance companies have urged courts to let them sue their own policyholders to recoup the costs that the insurance companies paid to defend their policyholders if, at the end of the day, some or all of the claims are excluded from coverage. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest state supreme court to reject the Buss approach, instead requiring the insurance company to bear the full cost of its duty to defend.Continue Reading Hawaii Supreme Court rejects insurance company claims for defense expense reimbursement
When James W. Marshall found gold in 1848 in California, over 300,000 prospectors migrated to California to take part in the new financial economy. The Oregon gold rush started a few years later at Josephine Creek, and a smaller rush happened in Washington State in the early 1880s starting at Swauk Creek. As a result of this influx of prospectors to the gold-rich West Coast, and the high risk/high reward nature of the business, appetite for risk in the region increased dramatically. Prospectors knew that it was a big risk to get a big reward.
This appetite for risk continues to this day in the realm of third-party liability coverage. When you purchase a general liability policy, the insurer agrees that it will pay any covered settlement or judgment up to the “policy limits,” an amount negotiated when the policy is purchased. But the insurance policy does not typically require an insurer to settle a case before trial. Courts have changed that.Continue Reading The Gold Rush – Risks and Rewards When an Insurer Prospects for a Defense Verdict