Insurance News of Note

Subscribe to Insurance News of Note via RSS

Cybercrime, including ransomware, is one of the top challenges facing organizations today. Businesses across the globe are suffering staggering cyber-related losses, losing around $60 billion on cyber crime annually.  

We are excited to launch our thought leadership campaign, “Cyber Insurance claims: Minimize risk, maximize recovery,” which provides a comprehensive look into the key issues relating to cyber insurance and ransomware claims and how clients can minimize their risk and maximize their recovery before and after a cyberattack.Continue Reading Cyber insurance claims: Minimize risk, maximize recovery

On the heels of last year’s special session on Florida’s property insurance crisis, which, among other things, eliminated one-way fee shifting in property insurance cases, the Florida Legislature has now passed even more aggressive pro-insurer legislation as part of a broader tort reform bill aimed at addressing “frivolous” litigation. House Bill 837 is not limited to property insurance issues, and instead includes various measures aimed at protecting insurance companies from liability for bad faith conduct and prevailing party attorney fees across all kinds of coverage disputes. HB 837 raises several important issues for policyholders and insurance litigation overall going forward. We discuss some of these issues below.

Fee-shifting allowed only in certain declaratory judgment actions

First, HB 837 appears to extend last year’s fee-shifting repeals to all lines and types of insurance coverage disputes, not just property insurance disputes, while creating a new limited fee-shifting statute for certain kinds of insurance disputes brought as declaratory judgment actions. This would allow for fee-shifting in declaratory judgment actions brought after an insurer has made a “total coverage denial.” The phrase “total coverage denial” is not defined, but according to the bill, would not include situations where a liability insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights. The bill does not say whether an insurer who also claims a right to reimbursement for defense costs paid on the insured’s behalf effectively seeks a total denial of coverage.Continue Reading Key issues for policyholders under Florida’s new tort reform bill 

M&A activity is making a comeback in 2023, according to Bloomberg Law (“M&A Roars Back in $40 Billion Surge Led by Miners, Storage” A. Kirchfeld and D. Nair, Feb. 6, 2023). The rise in transactions—and the likelihood of claims involving them—will no doubt lead to continued D&O insurance coverage disputes over the “bump up” exclusion.

Policyholders can navigate this speed bump, carriers waving the recent Seventh Circuit decision in Komatsu Mining Corp. v. Columbia Casualty Co., No. 21-2695 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2023), and the Final Statement of Decision After Phase One Court Trial entered in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Co., Case No. CIV 538248 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty. Dec. 30, 2022), notwithstanding. 

Rules for the Road to keep in mind:

1. Choice of law matters

Several courts have addressed the bump-up exclusion recently, and arrived at different results. Indeed, despite analyzing the same bump-up exclusion, the San Mateo County Court in California (applying California law) ruled in favor of insurers in Onyx whereas the Delaware Superior Court ruled in favor of the policyholders in Northrup Grumman Innovation Systems, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 92 (February 2, 2021) (the Delaware Supreme Court denied interlocutory appeal), and the Eastern District of Virginia Court (applying Virginia law) did as well in Towers Watson & Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192480 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2021) (currently on appeal in the Fourth Circuit). The Seventh Circuit applied Wisconsin law in Komatsu, ruling in favor of insurers based on a different version of the exclusion. In short, Delaware and Virginia law remain favorable whereas policyholders have not fared as well thus far under California and Wisconsin law. Continue Reading Navigating the “Bump-Up” exclusion in 2023: Rules for the road

Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court, in Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Supreme Court of California No. S253593, ruled in favor of Yahoo, Inc. (Yahoo!), a policyholder seeking insurance coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims.

The case came to the California Supreme Court as a certified question of law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reviewed the federal district court’s ruling, which dismissed Yahoo!’s insurance coverage action, and entered a judgment in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union). The high court disagreed, applying well-settled California rules of insurance policy interpretation, and found that the commercial general liability policy was ambiguous and must be interpreted in accordance with Yahoo!’s objectively reasonable expectations.

The facts

Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 to protect telephone users from unsolicited robocalls, robotexts, and junk faxes. Yahoo! has been named in a series of putative class action lawsuits alleging unsolicited text messages in violation of the TCPA. National Union declined to defend or indemnify Yahoo! in these lawsuits, claiming that the policy language in its commercial general liability insurance policy unambiguously bars coverage.Continue Reading California Supreme Court rules in favor of policyholders: what we learn from Yahoo! Inc. v. National Fire Insurance 

Faced with mounting claims for insurance coverage as a result of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, commercial insurers are likely to search for any policy provision that they think will enable them to avoid paying virus-related claims.  One provision that insurers ultimately may invoke in an attempt to deny such claims is the so-called “pollution exclusion” – an exclusion that can be found in both commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies and property insurance policies.  Policyholders should anticipate such an argument and should not walk away from insurance claims just because of it.  Although the exclusion is often broadly worded, there is generally good reason not to read it to preclude coverage for third-party claims and/or first-party losses involving viruses, including COVID-19.

While the exact language of the pollution exclusion may differ from one policy to another, it typically provides that there is no insurance for “bodily injury” and/or “property damage” that “would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.”  Again, while its precise definition can vary among policies, “pollutant” is typically defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.”Continue Reading Pollution exclusion should not preclude coverage for virus-related claims

Experian Data Breach Resolution (Experian) has identified its “top data breach trends of 2020,” and the cannabis industry should take note. In its “Data Breach Industry Forecast 2020,” Experian predicts that “we will see many burgeoning industries, such as cannabis retailers, cryptocurrency entities, and even some environmental organizations targeted for cyberattacks as a result of online activism or ‘hacktivism.’”

In recognition of this risk, cannabis retailers as well as other cannabis-related businesses should – in addition to taking other prudent risk-mitigation steps – ensure that they have procured insurance to protect against potential cyber-related losses and claims. While the cyber-insurance market available to cannabis-related businesses is still rather limited, such businesses generally still can – and should – obtain at least some cyber coverage today.
Continue Reading Are you covered? Cannabis industry must prepare for cyberattacks in 2020

Reviewing philosopher Mark Rowlands’ 2012 work Can Animals Be Moral?, Jessica Pierce wrote in the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, “The question, ‘Can animals be moral?’ has suffered the worst kind of philosophical denial: an almost complete lack of interest by ‘serious’ philosophers.”

No longer.  In an effort to apply “general canon[s] of contract interpretation,” the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – in a recent insurance-coverage opinion of all places – implicitly (if not explicitly) considered this timeless, vexing question and concluded that “[a]nimals do not have conscious agency and are not subject to human law.”

In the honorable pursuit of robust coverage law – really, is there a more noble pursuit? – the court rendered raccoons and their woodland “companions” as nothing more than legal roadkill.  Their demise, however, was not in vain.  The court’s decision serves as a good reminder to all that just because a term used in an insurance policy is not defined does not mean that it is ambiguous.Continue Reading Raccoons as legal roadkill: The Western District of Pennsylvania denies coverage for damage caused by masked bandits

It has long been acknowledged that typical Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) policies exclude coverage for “wage and hour” claims.[1] [2]  However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision, Southern California Pizza Co., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Number 11EPL-20208,[3] narrows the definition of what is a wage and hour claim, and improves the possibility of obtaining coverage for broad-brush wage and hour claims that tack on claims for failure to reimburse employees for business-related expenses.

In Southern California Pizza, the Court of Appeal held that claims brought under California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 for failure to reimburse employee expenses did not fall within the wage and hour exclusion in a Lloyd’s of London EPLI policy that excluded coverage for claims “based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly connected to or related to, or in any way alleging violations of any foreign, federal, state, or local, wage and hour or overtime law(s), including, without limitation, the Fair Labor Standards Act.”  In doing so, the Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the insured’s coverage case and rejected prior federal court decisions that had denied coverage for Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 claims under similar exclusionary language, stating that the California Courts of Appeal are “not bound by those federal decisions, nor do we find them persuasive.”[4]

Accordingly, policyholders who previously would not have had coverage for these types of reimbursement-related claims may now be able to trigger an insurer’s broad defense obligations and also obtain indemnification for some claims, depending on the language of their EPLI policy.Continue Reading Will your EPLI policy cover “wage and hour” claims in the wake of the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Southern California Pizza?

In a historic moment, the U.S. House of Representatives, yesterday, voted 321 to 103 in favor of H.R.1595, the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019, also known as the “SAFE Banking Act.”  If ultimately enacted into law, this legislation would provide insurers, as well as banks and other institutions, a “safe harbor” to do business with “cannabis-related legitimate businesses” in the United States.

The SAFE Banking Act is intended to “create protections for depository institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers for such businesses.”  As Politico observed, though, “[t]he cannabis banking bill isn’t just about banks.”  It also affects insurance companies and the insurance market.Continue Reading In historic vote, U.S. House passes SAFE Banking Act; but, what will U.S. Senate do?

Like any business, a business operating in the U.S. cannabis industry needs both first-party and third-party liability insurance.  Unlike other types of businesses, however, a cannabis-related business’ insurance needs may be dictated at least in part by state regulations.  Although not every state that has legalized cannabis for medical and/or adult use has promulgated specific insurance requirements for this industry, a number of states, via their cannabis regulations, have done so.  Accordingly, it is imperative for any cannabis-related business to carefully review the regulations in each jurisdiction in which it does business to ensure that it has obtained all required insurance.
Continue Reading Review state cannabis regulations for insurance requirements