Showing 1 - 10 of 106
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.
This week’s decision by the Eleventh Circuit in McNamara v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., __ F.4th __, No. 20-13251, 2022 WL 1013043 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022) expands the circumstances under which insurers in Florida may face exposure to third-party bad faith claims. At issue in McNamara was whether a bad faith action based on the insurer’s failure to settle a claim within policy limits may be predicated on a consent judgment between the claimant and insured, rather than a litigated judgment against the insured.
New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”) has been amended, limiting the scope of insurance information that defendants must provide in a litigation. Proposed amendments to New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”) were passed by the New York Senate and Assembly on January 26, 2022 and February 17, 2022, respectively.
New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”) has been amended, limiting the scope of insurance information that defendants must provide in a litigation. Proposed amendments to New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”) were passed by the New York Senate and Assembly on January 26, 2022 and February 17, 2022, respectively. The bill was delivered to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on February 24, 2022 and signed into law on February 25, 2022. The newly amended Act likely comes as welcome news to defense counsel, insureds, and insurers as it provides additional time to complete insurance disclosures, no longer applies retroactively, and limits the information required in the disclosures. Here we will discuss the changes to the newly amended Act and their impact on defense counsel, insureds, and insurers.
In Florida, a liability insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations before receiving a settlement demand, but only in cases where liability is clear, the policy limits are insufficient, and there is a likelihood of an excess judgment against the insured. Here, we analyse a recent case addressing the scope of this duty.
Mending the Gap (in Pleadings): Texas Supreme Court allows for consideration of extrinsic evidence in evaluating an insurer’s duty to defend
The Texas Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Fifth Circuit last week in Monroe Guaranty Insurance Company v. BITCO General Insurance Corporation, carving out an exception to the long-standing “eight corners rule” defining when a liability insurer is obligated to defend its insured in an underlying lawsuit.
Reformation of an insurance policy is an equitable remedy that is rarely employed by the courts. Yet, in the rare circumstances when it may be applied, the remedy can throw a wrench into even the most well-developed coverage defenses. If successful, a reformation posture can take policy language that clearly precludes coverage, and reform the policy such that it ultimately provides coverage. In 2021, New Jersey’s courts issued two decisions which illustrate the circumstances when reformation may be ordered.
Globalisation in virtually all business sectors is nothing new. Indeed, this phenomenon continues to expand and evolve, including broadening the scope of the global insurance market and its impact on litigation in the United States. The risks to which policyholders are exposed have become increasingly diverse and, due to expanding markets, US policyholders have greater access to policies issued by foreign insurers.
What is Hostile or Warlike?: An in-depth look at the Merck war exclusion decision and its shortfalls
On January 13, 2022, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, held in Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. ACE Amer. Ins. Co., et al., that the Hostile/Warlike Action Exclusion in various property policies did not prohibit coverage for the NotPetya cyberattack launched by the military arm of the Russian Federation government against the country of Ukraine.