Showing 1 - 10 of 114
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.”
Insurers and consumers alike are seeing the emergence of cryptocurrency in their daily lives. As increasing numbers of companies worldwide begin using bitcoin and other digital assets for a host of investment, operational, and transactional purposes, it raises an important question: How is cryptocurrency defined for the purposes of insurance coverage?
Insurance coverage attorneys often face challenges when seeking to enforce policy exclusions on their clients’ behalf. To that end, New York appellate courts have ruled on certain policy exclusions so often that their enforcement is akin to legal doctrine; yet, some exclusions remain virtually untouched by the higher courts, leaving the respective lawyers for policyholders and insurers alike to battle ardently over the meaning of what are otherwise clear, plain terms.
An in-depth look at the Target decision finding that loss-of-use damages included costs of replacing payment cards compromised in data breach
On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Target”) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage.