Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A recent New Jersey Superior Court decision highlights the risks policyholders face when officers or directors serve dual-capacity roles, such as participating on boards for multiple companies.

No policyholder wants to hear the word “rescission” in the context of an insurance claim. The reality, however, is that when policyholders complete applications for insurance, they are typically focused on obtaining the best policy terms for the best rate. Nuances about question wording, the breadth of the applicant’s representations or how a court may analyze the insurer’s questions or the policyholder’s answers usually take a back seat to the central importance of placing and renewing coverage at a realistic price. But once a claim is made, insurers look back at applications to assess the accuracy and completeness of all information received during the underwriting process, especially in signed applications. If the insurer discovers a misrepresentation, it can be used to rescind the policy, leaving the insured with no coverage. 

The United States Supreme Court recently accepted review of In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir. 2023), a Fourth Circuit decision concerning “whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a ‘party in interest’ that may object to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.” This issue, while one of first impression for the SCOTUS, has been litigated several times in the appellate courts, leading to a circuit split over the interplay between Article III and 11 U.S.C. Section 1109(b). 

Most modern liability insurance policies have provisions addressing whether different claims are “related” (or “interrelated”) for assessing potential coverage. Because the answer of whether two claims are “related” depends heavily on the facts giving rise to the underlying claims, the policy language, and applicable law, questions about relatedness can lead to significant insurance coverage disputes.

In a recent opinion, the Northern District Court of Illinois reaffirmed the bedrock principle that an insurer’s duty to defend is broad and triggered by any allegations in a complaint that potentially fall within a policy’s coverage grant.  In Harleysville Pref. Ins. Co. v. Dude Products Inc., et. al., Case No. 21-c-5249 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2022), the insured, Dude Products, Inc., sought coverage from its insurer, Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company, against a class action lawsuit that alleged Dude Products intentionally and falsely marketed its wipes as “flushable” even though the product allegedly did not break apart and caused “clogs and other sewage damage.” 

In a recently published opinion,^[1] the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division answered a question of first impression: whether the New Jersey Transportation Network Company Safety and Regulatory Act (the “Act”), which requires “transportation network companies”^[2] to provide at least $1.5 million in underinsured motorist insurance coverage, applies to food delivery services such as Uber Eats. 

Despite the seemingly calm tropics, hurricane season is still going strong and will be for another two months. Is your business prepared in the event a hurricane hits? Andrea DeField and Alice Weeks recently published an article in Risk Management Magazine which is full of tips to minimize losses and maximize recovery in the event of a hurricane, including reviewing your coverages, assessing and mitigating damage, and submitting a timely and proper claim. Click here for more:

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP recently wrote about the Eleventh Circuit decision in McNamara v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 30 F.4^th 1055 (11th Cir. 2022) (“McNamara”), where the court held that a consensual settlement (such as a consent judgment) serves as an excess judgment for the purposes of a bad faith claim.  In a follow up decision, the Eleventh Circuit extended its McNamara reasoning to a case involving an accepted proposal for settlement.  In Potter v. Progressive American Insurance Company, No. 21-11134 (11th Cir. 2022), Daniel Lee and Jolene Potter brought a third-party bad faith action against the insurer, Progressive.  The Potters were involved in an automobile accident with Progressive’s insured, under an automotive liability policy with bodily injury limits of $10,000 per person.  The Potters sued Progressive’s insured and ultimately served a proposal for settlement, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79, totaling $125,000.  The insured accepted the proposal, a final judgment was entered, and the Potters sued Progressive for bad faith.

Texas is among the minority of states that permit few, if any, deviations from the “eight-corners rule,” which provides that an insurer’s duty to defend must be determined from the complaint and the policy, without regard to extrinsic evidence or facts. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2022 WL 1090800 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2022) (“Bitco”), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider extrinsic evidence in determining Bitco’s duty to defend and outlined when a court applying Texas law can deviate from the state’s strict eight-corners rule under the Monroe exception.

In a recently published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit revisited – and departed from – its prior, unpublished decision in Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 791 F. App’x 60 (11th Cir. 2019). The Court held that a final judgment that exceeds all available liability policy limits, whether such judgment results from a jury verdict or a consensual settlement, constitutes an “excess judgment” that can be used to satisfy the causation requirement of an insurer bad faith claim in Florida.

In an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, a private equity firm has asked the court to reverse an order finding there was no coverage for a suit alleging it concealed that a facility it sold was run by Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. AKN Holdings had purchased a manufacturing facility in Reynosa, Mexico, from Thermo Fisher, unaware that the facility “was overrun” by the drug cartel of “El Chapo.” After discovering the concealment, AKN Holdings sued Thermo Fisher and, while that suit was pending, in turn sold the facility to FINSA, also without disclosing the cartel activities or its pending lawsuit.