Showing 1 - 10 of 117
New York federal court finds War Exclusion precludes coverage for lawsuit arising out of 2014 downing of Malaysia Flight 17
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying Colorado substantive law, ruled that a War Exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy (“CGL”) issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) to Western Union Company and Western Union Financial Services (together, “Western Union”) barred coverage for an underlying lawsuit claiming that Western Union and other financial institutions provided financial support to the Donetsk People’s Republic (the “DPR”), a Russian-backed separatist group in eastern Ukraine.
Oklahoma Supreme Court joins majority of COVID-19 decisions and finds for insurer in COVID-19 coverage dispute with Cherokee Nation
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is the most recent state high court to hold that property insurance policies do not provide coverage for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. In Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2022 OK 71 (Sept. 13, 2022), the court reversed a trial court’s ruling that a Tribal Property Insurance Program (TPIP) policy provided coverage for the Cherokee Nation’s alleged business interruption losses resulting from its temporary closure of its properties in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
A recent change to the New Jersey Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation creates a pre-suit, time sensitive obligation to provide the disclosure of applicable policy limits.
In its latest move to ensure that syndicates are appropriately addressing cyber exposures, Lloyd’s issued on August 16, 2022 Market Bulletin Y5381 -- “State backed cyber-attack exclusion” -- to require “legally reviewed” and “sufficiently robust” wordings in cyber policies to address both war and non-war state backed cyber-attacks. Lloyd’s noted that “exposure to cyber-attack losses has been an area of market focus in circumstances where the losses arise from attacks sponsored by sovereign states” and announced a requirement, effective March 31, 2023, for syndicates to include a state backed cyber-attack exclusion in stand-alone cyber policies at inception or upon renewal.
Insureds may find themselves liable to pay a plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in various contexts, whether by virtue of a statute or contractual provision. If prevailing party attorney’s fees are awarded, a question arises as to whether the fees are covered by the liability insurer defending the suit.
Today we announced the launch of our in-depth report, 'Rewriting the risk: Addressing the challenges of climate change', which finds that the underwriting practices of (re)insurers are a major catalyst for change among businesses in the ongoing climate crisis.
Our latest global report finds that the insurance industry has a central role in building wider understanding about climate-related risks and in mitigating against those risks.
A Louisiana intermediate appellate court issued its decision in the appeal of Cajun Conti, LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London et al., Case No. 2021-CA-0343, on June 15, 2022. The plurality decision of the court is notable as it is the first appellate ruling in the country to have reversed a trial court’s order in favor of insurers and find coverage under standard commercial property policy language for business interruption loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Governor DeSantis signed Senate Bill 2D (“SB 2D”), relating to property insurance, and Senate Bill 4D (“SB 4D”), relating to building safety, into law on May 26, 2022. The bill, SB 2D, enacts pro-consumer measures to help alleviate rising insurance costs, increases insurance claim transparency, and cracks down on frivolous lawsuits which drive up costs for all Floridians. It amends certain prohibited advertisement practices for contractors, and reigns in property insurance bad faith litigation and litigation by assignees.
All claims must be analyzed before a district court can exercise its discretion to dismiss a Federal Declaratory Judgment action in the Eleventh Circuit
Federal courts generally have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress has conferred to them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). But the Declaratory Judgment Act is different. It provides that in “a case of actual controversy … any court of the United States … may declare the rights and legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.”