From FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center: Court Uses Endorsement¹s Exclusion to Interpret Policy Exclusion, Finding Coverage.
A federal district court in Illinois, relying on the text of an exclusion in an endorsement to interpret an exclusion in a
homeowner’s policy, has found coverage for an underlying plaintiff’s lawsuit against the insureds.
The Case: Joseph Panfil and Renee Michelon sued Nautilus Insurance Company, seeking an order that it was obligated to defend them in an underlying lawsuit brought by a person who worked for a subcontractor they had hired. Nautilus contended that an “employee exclusion” in the policy precluded its duty to defend.
The Policy: An endorsement in the policy excluded coverage for: bodily injury to employees arising out of the course of their employment.
Seminar Handout for Construction Defect Litigation: from A to Z Bailey and Wyant PLLC
Construction Defect Litigation: from A to Z seminar covers issues of commercial general liability insurance coverage, duties of defense, indemnity, insurance debates, surety bonds, wrap insurance options and class action suits.
Claims-Made Policies May Cover Claims Submitted Outside the Reporting PeriodNationalUnderwriter
Claims-Made Policies May Cover Claims Submitted Outside the Reporting Period.
As a rule, liability insurance policies contain a condition requiring timely notice of a claim against the insured, so that the insurer has an opportunity to adequately investigate and defend the claim. A recurring issue is what happens when notice is not timely. Does the insured lose coverage, automatically, or only when the insurer is prejudiced by the late notice?
The answer can vary depending on what state’s law applies – in Wisconsin, this issue is seemingly answered not as much by policy language or case law but by two different statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 631.81 and 632.26, each of which expressly states than an insured loses coverage only where the insurer is “prejudiced” by late notice.
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liab...NationalUnderwriter
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liability Insurer of Dissolved Corporate Defendant. Can an asbestos bodily injury plaintiff directly sue the liability insurer of a dissolved corporate defendant? Yes, said New York’s Appellate Division, First Department – under certain circumstances. The court’s decision came in cases under In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, et al.[1]
Seminar Handout for Construction Defect Litigation: from A to Z Bailey and Wyant PLLC
Construction Defect Litigation: from A to Z seminar covers issues of commercial general liability insurance coverage, duties of defense, indemnity, insurance debates, surety bonds, wrap insurance options and class action suits.
Claims-Made Policies May Cover Claims Submitted Outside the Reporting PeriodNationalUnderwriter
Claims-Made Policies May Cover Claims Submitted Outside the Reporting Period.
As a rule, liability insurance policies contain a condition requiring timely notice of a claim against the insured, so that the insurer has an opportunity to adequately investigate and defend the claim. A recurring issue is what happens when notice is not timely. Does the insured lose coverage, automatically, or only when the insurer is prejudiced by the late notice?
The answer can vary depending on what state’s law applies – in Wisconsin, this issue is seemingly answered not as much by policy language or case law but by two different statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 631.81 and 632.26, each of which expressly states than an insured loses coverage only where the insurer is “prejudiced” by late notice.
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liab...NationalUnderwriter
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liability Insurer of Dissolved Corporate Defendant. Can an asbestos bodily injury plaintiff directly sue the liability insurer of a dissolved corporate defendant? Yes, said New York’s Appellate Division, First Department – under certain circumstances. The court’s decision came in cases under In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, et al.[1]
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Pa...NationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Party Bad Faith; Acknowledges Relevance of Actual Investigation by Frederic J. Giordano and Robert F. Pawlowski
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently issued an important pair of decisions for policyholders with bad faith claims against their first-party insurance companies in Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group[1] and Wadeer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company.[2] In Badiali and Wadeer, the court reiterated the narrow “fairly debatable” standard as the threshold for bad faith claims in New Jersey. But, the court also opened the door to modify this standard in the Badiali decision by recognizing the relevance of the actual claims handling in a particular case.
CGL Coverage Form -- Coverage A (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law ...NationalUnderwriter
This article analyzes coverage A, bodily injury and property damage coverages of the ISO CGL form CG 00 01.
Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability:
Summary: Coverage A of the current commercial general liability (CGL) coverage forms, both the
occurrence form and the claims-made form, provides bodily injury and property damage liability
insurance. This article discusses the features of coverage A that are common to both the occurrence
and the claims-made form.
In Tort law, there are two important laws that prevail in United Kingdom, that is, law of contract and law of tort. The same are law of contract (a contract deals with when parties are in relationship by forming an agreement and abide by its terms) and the law of negligence (where the parties are in relationship under the duty of law).
Proposed Repeal and Re-enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
2014’. Since the term ‘juvenile’ has been replaced with the term ‘child’ all through the proposed bill it should reflect in the title. Also, in all sections of the Bill, and in all nomenclature used for bodies under the proposed bill, it is recommended that the term ‘juvenile’ should be changed to child.
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
Life Insurer's Liability for Actions of Its Producer--Even before Producer's ...NationalUnderwriter
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has affirmed a lower court’s decision upholding the Maine Superintendent of
Insurance’s conclusion that Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (“GTL”) was accountable for violations of a number of Maine statutes by a company acting as GTL’s producer – even before the company’s formal appointment as GTL’s producer. As a result, the court upheld the Superintendent’s order that GTL pay a civil penalty of $150,000.
EU Case Alert: CJEU deals a VAT blow to FS Businesses (DNB Banka / Aviva)Alex Baulf
The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its judgments in two separate cases concerning whether a bank (in the case of DNB Banka) or an insurance business (in the case of Aviva) could benefit from the cost sharing group exemption provided by the VAT Directive.
On 1 March 2017, Advocate General Kokott issued a surprise opinion in these two cases which stated that the exemption provided by the Directive was only available to businesses operating in the public interest. The full Court has now delivered its judgment and it has agreed with the views expressed by the Advocate General. The cost sharing group exemption is not available to businesses providing financial services.
Be the attorney you dreamed of being. Jump start your career with Tully Rinckey PLLC:
http://www.tullylegal.com/careers/
May, 2015 - This course will be led by Tully Rinckey PLLC Senior Counsel Robert J. Rock, Esq. Mr. Rock will draw upon his over thirty years of experience as a bankruptcy attorney. Mr. Rock will provide guidance to attorneys on alternatives to bankruptcy, evaluating client qualifications for bankruptcy, types of bankruptcy cases, and major laws and rules practitioners should know. Mr. Rock will also provide insight into tactics to avoid potential pitfalls with clients and their bankruptcy petitions.
Goals:
To provide background on family business centers including survey results
We surveyed family business centers, got 23 responses out of 100.
A framework to analyze sustainability of family business centers from a capitalization perspective. Frames includes political, social, intellectual and financial capital
Suggestions to create, maintain or enhance sustainability. For each of the frames, we will provide advice on how to enhance sustainability
Professional Development - Suggestions on how to enjoy personal success from building sustainability
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Pa...NationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Party Bad Faith; Acknowledges Relevance of Actual Investigation by Frederic J. Giordano and Robert F. Pawlowski
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently issued an important pair of decisions for policyholders with bad faith claims against their first-party insurance companies in Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group[1] and Wadeer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company.[2] In Badiali and Wadeer, the court reiterated the narrow “fairly debatable” standard as the threshold for bad faith claims in New Jersey. But, the court also opened the door to modify this standard in the Badiali decision by recognizing the relevance of the actual claims handling in a particular case.
CGL Coverage Form -- Coverage A (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law ...NationalUnderwriter
This article analyzes coverage A, bodily injury and property damage coverages of the ISO CGL form CG 00 01.
Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability:
Summary: Coverage A of the current commercial general liability (CGL) coverage forms, both the
occurrence form and the claims-made form, provides bodily injury and property damage liability
insurance. This article discusses the features of coverage A that are common to both the occurrence
and the claims-made form.
In Tort law, there are two important laws that prevail in United Kingdom, that is, law of contract and law of tort. The same are law of contract (a contract deals with when parties are in relationship by forming an agreement and abide by its terms) and the law of negligence (where the parties are in relationship under the duty of law).
Proposed Repeal and Re-enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
2014’. Since the term ‘juvenile’ has been replaced with the term ‘child’ all through the proposed bill it should reflect in the title. Also, in all sections of the Bill, and in all nomenclature used for bodies under the proposed bill, it is recommended that the term ‘juvenile’ should be changed to child.
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
Life Insurer's Liability for Actions of Its Producer--Even before Producer's ...NationalUnderwriter
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has affirmed a lower court’s decision upholding the Maine Superintendent of
Insurance’s conclusion that Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (“GTL”) was accountable for violations of a number of Maine statutes by a company acting as GTL’s producer – even before the company’s formal appointment as GTL’s producer. As a result, the court upheld the Superintendent’s order that GTL pay a civil penalty of $150,000.
EU Case Alert: CJEU deals a VAT blow to FS Businesses (DNB Banka / Aviva)Alex Baulf
The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its judgments in two separate cases concerning whether a bank (in the case of DNB Banka) or an insurance business (in the case of Aviva) could benefit from the cost sharing group exemption provided by the VAT Directive.
On 1 March 2017, Advocate General Kokott issued a surprise opinion in these two cases which stated that the exemption provided by the Directive was only available to businesses operating in the public interest. The full Court has now delivered its judgment and it has agreed with the views expressed by the Advocate General. The cost sharing group exemption is not available to businesses providing financial services.
Be the attorney you dreamed of being. Jump start your career with Tully Rinckey PLLC:
http://www.tullylegal.com/careers/
May, 2015 - This course will be led by Tully Rinckey PLLC Senior Counsel Robert J. Rock, Esq. Mr. Rock will draw upon his over thirty years of experience as a bankruptcy attorney. Mr. Rock will provide guidance to attorneys on alternatives to bankruptcy, evaluating client qualifications for bankruptcy, types of bankruptcy cases, and major laws and rules practitioners should know. Mr. Rock will also provide insight into tactics to avoid potential pitfalls with clients and their bankruptcy petitions.
Goals:
To provide background on family business centers including survey results
We surveyed family business centers, got 23 responses out of 100.
A framework to analyze sustainability of family business centers from a capitalization perspective. Frames includes political, social, intellectual and financial capital
Suggestions to create, maintain or enhance sustainability. For each of the frames, we will provide advice on how to enhance sustainability
Professional Development - Suggestions on how to enjoy personal success from building sustainability
Defining Terms in an Insurance Policy Exclusion: What the "Eight Corners" Ru...NationalUnderwriter
Defining Terms in an Insurance Policy Exclusion: What the "Eight Corners" Rule Does Not Require by Kelly M. Lippincott and Katherine C. Ondeck (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
In Carlyle Investment Management, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co.,[1] the District of Columbia Superior Court held that when an insurance contract’s definitions of relevant terms brings a claim within the scope of an exclusion within the
policies, it does not matter whether those same terms might mean something else in the context of a different case or a different contract. The contract definitions of the terms control.
Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" i...NationalUnderwriter
Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" in California Can Retain More Than One Firm
by Carey B. Moorehead
In a case of first impression, a California district court has ruled that California law does not preclude an insured from
retaining multiple law firms as independent or Cumis counsel where the insurer is defending under reservation of
rights. The court’s ruling came in the case of Signal Products v. American Zurich Insurance Company, et al.
The Signal Products court was called upon to interpret California Civil Code §2860 in the context of cross-motions for summary judgment between American Zurich Insurance Company and its insured Signal Products, Inc., the defendant in a trademark infringement action. Zurich had agreed to defend Signal under reservation of rights and consented to Signal’s retention of independent counsel.
Don¹t Take Any Wooden Nickels: Lawyers as Targets of Lucrative ScamsNationalUnderwriter
It may come as somewhat of a surprise to some to learn that one kind of business that appears to be particularly susceptible to electronically-induced scams is the legal profession. Yes, lawyers. In the fairly typical scam, lawyers are contacted by foreigners who are in need of legal assistance in collecting debts. The law firms eventually receive checks for large sums from the debtors, and are instructed to deposit them for further instructions. What these law firms do, so as not to comingle with the firms’ accounts, is to establish special accounts at the firms’ financial institutions. Before these checks are cleared by the banks on which the funds were drawn, the clients request that the money representing the checks sent to the law firms, be wired to foreign accounts, less the law firms’ retainer. After the money is received by the foreigners, the law firms are notified that the checks, drawn on foreign or domestic banks, originally sent to the law firms, are bogus.
The article discusses a number of court decisions where lawyers were duped by thieves and sought coverage for
their losses under their commercial insurance policies.
Because of Evidence of a "Special Relationship" Between Insureds and Their Br...NationalUnderwriter
Because of Evidence of a "Special Relationship" Between Insureds and Their Broker, Insureds' Suit Against Broker Should Not Have Been Dismissed, NY's Highest Court Holds
New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, has ruled that sufficient evidence of a “special relationship” existed between insureds and their insurance broker such that a negligence lawsuit brought by the insureds against their broker should not have been dismissed at the summary judgment stage.
Three insurance claims scenarios every agent should share with their insured AMT Warranty
Insurance companies come across all kinds of claim scenarios. In this article, we will discuss three different scenarios and the coverages that apply (or may not apply) to them:
Slip and fall incident
FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Commission) investigation
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) charge
This paper examines the broad net Congress cast to capture event contracts under the Commodities Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) jurisdiction and the exclusion the CFTC crafted allowing traditional indemnity-based insurance to remain within the jurisdiction of state insurance regulation.
This article discusses the separation of insureds clause as it applies in various policies: CGL, business auto, garage, truckers, and business owners. Includes reference to additional insured and cross liability coverage on the commercial general liability form.
The wording of current liability insurance policies has brought about questions concerning who is insured and to whom the various exclusions and conditions apply. The separation of insureds clause under the CGL form, for example, states that the insurance applies “as if each named insured were the only named insured’’ and “separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought.’’ So a question arises: if the named insured makes a liability claim against an entity who is an insured under the named insured’s CGL form, will the insurer defend that other insured and pay the named insured for his or her alleged damages?
Another example is exclusion (j) (4) on the CGL form. That exclusion deals with property damage to personal property in the care, custody, or control of the insured. Here, the question is: does the exclusion apply only to the particular insured that has the personal property in his or her hands, or can it be applied to all the insureds under the CGL form simply because one of the insureds has control of the property?
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Inju...NationalUnderwriter
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Injury and Property Damage Coverages by Michael S. Levine and Matthew T. McLellan
Business Liability Policy Requires Insurer to Defend Defamation and Business ...NationalUnderwriter
Business Liability Policy Requires Insurer to Defend Defamation and Business Tort Claims Arising Out of Business' Website Publications by Michael S. Levine and Patrick M. McDermott
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has held that an insurer has a duty to defend claims arising out of Web site publications.[1] In that case, the court rejected an insurer’s attempt to disclaim coverage based upon an exclusion barring coverage for insureds whose business is advertising, broadcasting, publishing or telecasting, finding that posting news stories on a Web site was incidental to the insured’s business and therefore not excluded.
CBI Comments on Proposed TRIA Regulatory DefinitionsJasonSchupp1
This comment letter focuses on the proposed rule changes for the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act regulations with respect to the definitions of:
• Act of terrorism; and
• Insured loss
in accordance with Treasury’s Notice appearing at 85 FR 71588 (November 10, 2020).
Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A 3-State Sample of a Complete State-by-State C...NationalUnderwriter
Welcome to the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A State-by-State Compendium!
This is a 3-state sample of the FREE complete, 186-page state-by-state compendium.
This state-by-state compendium, culled from FC&S Legal’s Eye on the Experts column, is taken from the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Laws in the United States Manual, contributed by John P. Dearie, Jr., John N. Emmanuel, Robert A. Romano, and Paige D. Waters, attorneys at Locke Lord LLP, which reflects all of the pertinent changes in the surplus lines laws and regulations of the 50 states and U.S. territories including a special section on the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (“NRRA”) and the steps surplus lines carriers and brokers should be
taking now to ensure compliance with this groundbreaking legislation.
Easy to use and highly informative, this State-by-State Compendium will be your go-to resource for Excess and Surplus Lines Law around the nation.
Get your complete--and complimentary--compendium today: https://fs8.formsite.com/sbmedia/form1661/index.html
How to Successfully Navigate the Latest Changes to the Affordable Care ActNationalUnderwriter
From ALM's National Underwriter comes a timely and necessary ACA presentation covering:
Employer Mandate Penalties
• Reporting Requirements
• Small Business Health Options (SHOP) Changes
• Cadillac Tax Delay
• Delay of Menu Labeling Rule
• Other Affordable Care Act Changes
• Changes to IRS Forms
• Statistics
Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Wa...NationalUnderwriter
From the NEW Verdicts & Settlements section of FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center: Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Water Damage to Their Home
A Florida jury has rejected a couple’s claim that they were entitled to $600,000 from their homeowner’s insurance company for water damage to their residence, finding that the damage claimed by the couple had not been caused by water flowing from a water spout that had been left on overnight.
Facts & Allegations
Andres and Doris Cabo alleged that on January 11, 2011, their residence in Miami-Dade County sustained property damage as a result of their daughter leaving the kitchen faucet’s filtered water spout on overnight. The couple filed a claim with their insurance carrier, Security First Insurance, for water damage to their home.
The EU Solvency II Regime for Insurers: An Update on ImplementationNationalUnderwriter
The EU Solvency II Regime for Insurers: An Update on Implementation by Jeremy G. Hill, James C. Scoville, Edite Ligere, and Benjamin Lyon
The Prudential Regulation Authority’s Policy Statement 2/15: A New Regime for Insurers
On March 20, 2015, the Prudential Regulation Authority (“PRA”) published Policy Statement 2/15 on Solvency II: A new regime for insurers (“PS2/15”),[1] which runs to 330 pages, sets out the rules and accompanying supervisory statements[2] required for the PRA’s implementation of Solvency II.
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...NationalUnderwriter
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles by Daphne G. Frydman, Brian Barrett, and Raymond A. Ramirez
Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2]
Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.
Arbitration in Insurance Coverage Disputes: Pluses and MinusesNationalUnderwriter
Arbitration in Insurance Coverage Disputes: Pluses and Minuses By Peter A. Halprin
Deciding whether to proceed with arbitration, either after the denial of a claim or when procuring the placement of a policy,requires an understanding of arbitration and its advantages and disadvantages. This article analyzes the perceived advantages and disadvantages of arbitration.
Policyholders may be surprised to find that their insurance policies contain an arbitration provision. Deciding whether to proceed with arbitration, either after the denial of a claim or when procuring the placement of a policy, requires an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration.
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance PoliciesNationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance Policies by Tom Stilwell, John English, Justin T. Scott, and J. Sean Jain
In a case that has been closely watched by the oil and gas industry and its insurers, the Supreme Court of Texas recently issued its opinion in In re Deepwater Horizon, and settled the debate concerning whether a company’s insurance policies stood alone or were married to and dependent upon an insured’s limited obligation in a separate contract to insure and indemnify a third party. Specifically, the court found that Transocean’s $750 million primary and excess insurance policies did not offer unrestricted coverage to BP as an additional insured, but instead incorporated and were bound by the
limitations placed on Transocean’s liability under the parties’ drilling contract (the “Drilling Contract”).
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Rig...NationalUnderwriter
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Right to Recover Punitive Damages Arising from Insurer¹s Bad Faith by Sara N. Brown and Roberta D. Anderson
In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wolfe[1] that a policyholder may assign statutory bad faith claims under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, Section 8371,[2] to a third party claimant.
Importantly, Wolfe resolves the conflict among Pennsylvania and federal decisions regarding the assignability of the right to recover statutory bad faith damages, and allows assignees to seek punitive damages under the statute against an insurer who acts in bad faith.
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to In...NationalUnderwriter
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to Insurers by Eric R. Dinallo, Jeremy Feigelson, David A. O’Neil, Jim Pastore, and Jordan R. Friedland
The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently announced a major expansion of its cybersecurity efforts: DFS will require insurers to respond to a special “comprehensive risk assessment” on cybersecurity, with those assessments to be followed by an enhanced focus on cybersecurity as part of DFS’s regular examinations of insurers. DFS’s announcement expands to insurance the increasingly rigorous approach it has recently applied to banks in the area of cyber security. More importantly, it offers critical guidance to all industries about what regulators will consider adequate precautions and preparation in this area.
Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an AuditNationalUnderwriter
Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an Audit by Lynda Bennett
2014 ended almost the same way that it began for most companies – having concerns about cyber security and hackers. At the beginning of the year, the news cycle was focused on breaches that took place in the consumer product space as Target, Michael’s, Neiman Marcus, and Home Depot worked fast and furious to address breaches that led to concerns about a massive amount of credit card information possibly being “in the open.” Later in the year, we learned that corporate giants like JPMorgan Chase and Apple were not immune from cyber security breaches as still more personally identifiable information and very personal photographs were released into the public domain. Finally, as 2014 drew to a close, the entertainment industry was further rocked by the cyber-attack on Sony Corp., which led to even broader concerns about national security and terrorist threats.
Class Actions: Insurance Related Claims
by Thomas F. Segalla
Whether prosecuting or opposing a motion for class certification, within the context of insurance related claims, there are certain principles that are critical to determining the allegations that are necessary to successfully assert such claims and the nature of any challenge to a motion to certify the punitive class. As the court noted, in the case of Deborah Mahon v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.:[1]
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad ...NationalUnderwriter
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer by Michael S. Levine
In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.
CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...NationalUnderwriter
CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles
Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer
and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2]
Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.
N.J. Trial Court Applies "Named Storm" Deductible in Superstorm Sandy Case
A New Jersey trial court has ruled that the “Named Storm” deductible applied to an insured’s claim in a Superstorm Sandy case.
The Case:
Wakefern Food Corporation, a buying cooperative of owners/operators of Shoprite and PriceRite supermarkets that purchased commercial property insurance from Lexington Insurance Company, claimed over $50 million in losses from Superstorm Sandy. Lexington paid about $22 million, and Wakefern sued the insurer.
Wakefern asserted that Superstorm Sandy was not a “Named Storm” by definition when it hit New Jersey and its losses had occurred. It asserted that when the storm hit New Jersey at approximately 8:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012, the storm was not declared by the National Weather Service to be a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or tropical depression, as its policy defined Named Storm. Wakefern pointed out that as of 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012,
the storm already was “expected to transition into a frontal or wintertime low pressure system shortly.” Wakefern
contended that by 7:00 p.m. EDT, the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center (“NHC”) had declared the storm a “Post-Tropical Cyclone.” Wakefern argued that a “Post-Tropical Cyclone” was defined in the glossary of NHC terms as its own weather event and that a Post-Tropical Cyclone was a “former tropical cyclone” not a “Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Storm or Tropical Depression.”
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-...NationalUnderwriter
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer
In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamin...NationalUnderwriter
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamination Resulting from the Application of Manure and Septage as Fertilizer
In Wilson Mutual Ins. Co. v. Robert Falk and Jane Falk,[1] and Preisler v. Kuettel’s Septic Serv.,[2] the Wisconsin Supreme Court sought to resolve conflicting court of appeals’ decisions on whether excrement (manure and septic waste, respectively) are “pollutants” under standard insurance policy exclusions when they contaminate groundwater after
being applied as fertilizer. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected categorically defining manure and septage as
“pollutants.” Instead, the court determined that such fertilizing excrement unambiguously falls within the applicable policy’s definition of “pollutants” once the manure and/or septage has contaminated a water supply.
New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Fam...NationalUnderwriter
New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Families a Single Loss for Coverage Purposes
In its recent decision in Nesmith v. Allstate Ins. Co.,[1] the New York Court of Appeals ruled that lead paint exposure
injuries suffered by the children of two different families occupying the same apartment in successive periods constitute a single “accidental loss” subject to a single per-occurrence limit pursuant to the non-cumulation clause in two successive policies issued by a landlord’s insurer.
February14 IRS Valentine’s Day Words of Wisdom by Jay KatzNationalUnderwriter
Who Says the IRS is Heartless? I retort, you decide. Here are the February 14 IRS Valentine’s Day Words of Wisdom, by Jay Katz, author of the Tools & Techniques of IncomeTax Planning, 4th Edition
Discharge of Debt Income (from The Tools & Techniques of Income Tax Planning)NationalUnderwriter
Discharge of Debt Income is culled from the NEW 4th Edition of The Tool & Techniques of Income Tax Planning. It covers: When Can a Discharge of Debt Be Excluded from Gross Income?; Types of Indebtedness; Recourse v. Nonrecourse; Which Types of Debt Can Be Excluded from a Taxpayer’s Gross Income?; Which Types of Debt Can Be Excluded from a Taxpayer’s Gross Income?; and MORE.
Jay Katz, author of The Tools & Techniques of Income Tax Planning, addresses the IRS Halloween Bag of Tricks in a recent posting to his blog, Tool & Techniques World of Financial & Tax Planning.
Court Uses Endorsement¹s Exclusion to Interpret Policy Exclusion, Finding Coverage
1. The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center
The following article is from National Underwriter’s latest online resource,
FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center.
COURT USES ENDORSEMENT’S EXCLUSION TO INTERPRET
POLICY EXCLUSION, FINDING COVERAGE
January 9, 2014 Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., Director, FC&S Legal
A federal district court in Illinois, relying on the text of an exclusion in an endorsement to interpret an exclusion in a
homeowner’s policy, has found coverage for an underlying plaintiff’s lawsuit against the insureds.
The Case
Joseph Panfil and Renee Michelon sued Nautilus Insurance Company, seeking an order that it was obligated to defend
them in an underlying lawsuit brought by a person who worked for a subcontractor they had hired. Nautilus contended
that an “employee exclusion” in the policy precluded its duty to defend.
The Policy
An endorsement in the policy excluded coverage for:
bodily injury
to:
employees
arising out of the course of their employment.
Section D of the Contractors Subcontracted Work Endorsement added an exclusion to the policy that stated:
This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” arising out of
work performed by any contractors or subcontractors unless such work is being performed specifically and solely for you.
The Court’s Decision
The court found coverage.
In its decision, it acknowledged that the plaintiff in the underlying complaint appeared to fall within the policy’s definition
of “employee.” The court then pointed out that Section D of the Contractors Subcontracted Work Endorsement
excluded a class of persons from coverage for “bodily injury” who already were excluded from coverage by the employee
exclusion (contractors and subcontractors), but then recognized an exception to the exclusion (contractors and
subcontractors working specifically for the insured were not excluded). It said that the persons who would have been
saved by the exception apparently were in any event also excluded from coverage under the policy’s employee exclusion.
The court refused to find the endorsement’s exclusion to be “meaningless or superfluous.” According to the court, if
the exception for injured persons who were not excluded from coverage that was provided for in Section D was to mean
anything, the employee exclusion had to be interpreted “so as to make room for it.”
The court agreed with Nautilus that, under Illinois law, an exception to an exclusion did not create coverage or provide
an additional basis for coverage, but said that by “preserving coverage already granted in the insuring provision,” the
exception to the exclusion offered some indication as to what the policy itself was meant to cover.
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com