Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A Georgia district court recently denied an insurer's attempt to recoup defense costs, holding that even where the court previously determined that coverage was barred under the policy's pollution exclusion, the insurer could not "rewrite the record" or clarify its "defective" reservation of rights letters to show that it fairly informed the policyholder of its coverage position, which is a prerequisite to recoupment of defense costs.

Hunton & Williams insurance partner Syed Ahmad commented in a July 19, 2017, Law360 article concerning the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Olin Corp. v. OneBeacon America Insurance. In the decision, which is the subject of a July 26, 2017, Hunton blog post, the Second Circuit agreed with Olin that its payments toward remediating contamination at five manufacturing sites implicated a series of excess policies issued by Lamorak Insurance Co., formerly OneBeacon.

The ruling adopted the principles articulated by New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals ...

In recent months, insurers have increasingly used New York rescission law as a means to not only deny coverage for specific claims, but also to void any protection an insurance policy may provide for other losses down the road. For example, H.J. Heinz Company recently found itself without coverage for a $30 million recall after its insurer rescinded its policy based on a misrepresentation in Heinz’s insurance application. In an article for FC&S Legal, Syed S. Ahmad, Tae Andrews, and Kelly Oeltjenbruns analyze recent rescission claims and illustrate the dangerous exposure—and ...

Last week, the Second Circuit remanded environmental coverage litigation between Olin Corporation and OneBeacon based on its conclusions that (1) all sums allocation applied and (2) a prior insurance provision allowed OneBeacon the opportunity to show that prior excess insurers had made payments for the same claims, thereby reducing OneBeacon’s liability for Olin’s remediation costs at five manufacturing sites.

The district court had calculated OneBeacon’s liability on a pro rata allocation. Based on the New York Court of Appeals’ intervening decision in Viking Pump (previously covered here, the Second Circuit found that an all sums allocation should apply. The decision thus allows Olin to obtain full indemnification under OneBeacon’s policy for amounts spent to remediate the manufacturing sites, up to the limits of that policy. Because the district court had applied a pro rata allocation based on pre-Viking Pump case law, the Second Circuit remanded for the district court to recalculate damages.

Hunton & Williams insurance practice head Walter Andrews commented in a July 25, 2017, Law360 article concerning a New York federal court’s recent decision in Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., where the court found coverage for a $4.8 million “social engineering” loss that occurred after Medidata received fraudulent emails that caused accounting personnel to wire funds to a fake bank account in China. The decision, which was the subject of a July 24, 2017, Hunton blog post, focused on two main issues: (1) whether the fraudulent emails amounted to an infiltration of ...

A federal judge in New York awarded summary judgment on Friday in favor of Medidata Solutions, Inc., finding that Medidata’s $4.8 million loss suffered after Medidata was tricked into wiring funds to a fraudulent overseas account, triggered coverage under a commercial crime policy’s computer fraud provision and funds transfer fraud provision. The award comes after District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., ruled in March 2016 that additional expert discovery was needed concerning the manner in which the fraudsters manipulated Medidata’s computer systems.

The lawsuit, discussed in an August 18, 2016, Hunton & Williams blog post, arose after employees in Medidata’s finance department were deceived into transferring $4.8 million to a Chinese bank account based on emails that falsely appeared to come from a Medidata executive. Federal Insurance Company, a unit of Chubb Corp., insured Medidata under a policy providing coverage for, among other things, computer fraud, forgery and funds transfer fraud. Federal argued that Medidata’s claim was not covered because, among other things, there was no manipulation of Medidata’s computers and Medidata “voluntarily” transferred the funds.

As discussed in prior posts, recent cyber events, such as the “Wanna Cry” ransomware attack, serve as important reminders to policyholders that cyber insurance should remain a priority for any business facing potential exposure from a cyber event. A recent report further underscores the potential impact of a major global cyber event, estimating that the resulting loss could exceed $53 billion worldwide, on par with the damage caused by catastrophic natural disasters such as hurricanes.

Earlier this week, Lloyd’s of London issued an emerging risk report, co-authored with risk-modeling firm Cyence, that examines several plausible cyber-risk scenarios to help insurers and policyholders understand cyber liability and risk exposures in an area that the report concludes is relatively underdeveloped compared with other classes of insurance.

In 2015 and 2016, we discussed certain provisions of the then drafts of the Restatement of the Law, Liability insurance, including the Duty to Cooperate, here, and Duty to Defend, here and here. In late May 2017, the American Law Institute met to approve the Proposed Final Draft—the culmination of over seven years of work on this project. Not surprisingly, many of the issues discussed in the Restatement have been hotly contested by insurers. While in many instances, the reporters simply opted for the majority rule, in a few instances, the Restatement may seek to move the law on key ...

In the linked Client Alert, my colleague, Geoff Fehling, discusses the recent federal appellate decision in Camacho v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-14225, 2017 WL 2889470 (11th Cir. July 7, 2017), where the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a Georgia district court’s refusal to disturb a jury award for the policyholder arising from the insurer’s failure to accept a time-limited settlement demand, holding that the lower court’s order was “thorough and well-reasoned.”

In the linked Client Alert, my colleagues, Lorie Masters and Brittany Davidson, discuss the recent New Jersey appellate court decision in Haskell Prop., LLC v. Am. Ins. Co., No. A-1452-14T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 29, 2017), where the court again confirmed that, in “occurrence” policies, an insured can assign its policies after a loss even if the policy has an anti-assignment provision.

Commercial general liability policies typically provide coverage to insureds for losses resulting from property damage caused by an “occurrence,” usually defined in the policy as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same harmful conditions.” In the context of food recalls, however, the exact cause of the food damage, whether contamination, spoilage or something else, may be unknown. This creates uncertainty, and in turn, a coverage dispute, over whether the cause of damage was indeed accidental, and thus a covered ...

Coverage often turns on the meaning of a single word or phrase in an insurance policy. The definition of “counterfeit” in financial institution bonds can be especially tricky. On June 12, 2017, the court in Harvard Sav. Bank v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-11674, 2017 WL 2560900, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2017) addressed the definition of “counterfeit” in the financial institution bond issued by Security National Insurance Company to Harvard Savings Bank. As the ruling illustrates, terminology that may appear to be insignificant can often make all the difference between millions of dollars in recovery versus no coverage being available.