Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The Sixth Circuit has rejected Travelers Casualty & Surety Company’s request for reconsideration of the court’s July 13, 2018 decision, confirming that the insured’s transfer of more than $800,000 to a fraudster after receipt of spoofed e-mails was a direct loss" that was "directly caused by" the use of a computer under the terms of ATC’s crime policy.  In doing so, the court likewise confirmed that intervening steps by the insured, such as following the directions contained in the bogus e-mails, did not break the causal chain so as to defeat coverage for “direct” losses.

In a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.

The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a general liability insurer must defend an employer against allegations of employee misconduct, reinforcing the breadth of (1) what constitutes an “occurrence” under an employer’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy and (2) the duty to defend regarding claims for negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The opinion in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., Inc. can be found here.

There was nothing ambiguous in former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s ruling in AIG Property Cas. Co. v. Cosby, No. 17-1505 (1st Cir. June 7, 2018), where, sitting by designation, Justice Souter ruled that AIG Property and Casualty Co. (“AIG”) must defend Bill Cosby in suits brought by eight women alleging that Cosby defamed them after they accused him of sexual misconduct.  Cosby held two insurance policies issued by AIG:  a homeowner’s policy and a personal excess liability policy (the “umbrella policy"”).  Under each policy, AIG has a duty to “pay damages [Cosby] is legally obligated to pay [due to] personal injury or property damage caused by an occurrence covered[] by this policy anywhere in the world . . . .”  Both policies define “personal injury” to include “[d]efamation” and require AIG to pay the cost of defending against suits seeking covered damages.  Both policies also contain so-called “sexual misconduct” exclusions.  The homeowner’s policy’s exclusion bars coverage for liability or defense costs “arising out of any actual, alleged[,] or threatened . . . [s]exual molestation, misconduct or harassment[,] . . . or . . . [s]exual, physical or mental abuse.”  The umbrella policy contained similar wording.  However, that policy also contained another “sexual misconduct” exclusion under the “Limited Charitable Board Directors and Trustees Liability” coverage part.  That exclusion applied more broadly to claims for damages “[a]rising out of, or in any way involving, directly or indirectly, any alleged sexual misconduct” (emphasis added).

Two recent decisions addressing allocation of long-tail liabilities demonstrate that resolution of the issue under New York law depends upon the policy language at issue. Judge-made rules on “equity” and “fairness” do not control.  As the New York Court of Appeals held on March 27, 2018, in Keyspan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., 2018 WL 1472635 (2018), under New York law, “the method of allocation is covered for most by the particular language of the relevant insurance policy.” Both Keyspan and the April 2, 2018 decision in Hopeman Brothers, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 16-cv-00187 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2018), by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, illustrate the importance of reviewing insurance policies - both before purchase, to ensure that they contain optimal language for coverage; and after claims arise, to ensure that the policyholder receives the benefit of insurance coverage under “legacy” and all other potentially applicable policies.

A New York appellate court ruled recently in Hanover Insurance Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121 (1st Dep’t March 27, 2018), that an insurance policy did not cover an additional named insured over a personal-injury lawsuit arising from its alleged negligence because coverage was limited only to injuries caused by the named insured.  This decision again underscores, as we advised in a recent Blog Post addressing JP Energy Marketing LLC v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Co. (which can be found here), the importance of carefully evaluating the wording of “additional insured” provisions, which can vary widely in scope and effect.

In a ruling earlier this month, an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled in Scott, Blane, and Darren Recovery L.L.C., Anova Foods Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., No. 17-12945-E, 2018 WL 1611256 (11th Cir. 2018), that an insurer did not have a duty to defend and indemnify its insured in a false marketing suit. Anova Food Inc. was sued by its competitor, King Tuna, for allegedly falsely asserting in its advertising that it treated tuna meat with a smoking process using filtered wood chips. King Tuna claimed that, in reality, Anova treated its tuna with synthetic carbon monoxide. In finding that King Tuna’s lawsuit did not trigger Auto-Owner’s duty to defend, the court held (1) that the lawsuit did allege a covered “advertising injury”; (2) that coverage was excluded under the policy’s “failure to conform” exclusion; and (3) coverage was barred by Anova’s untimely notice of the lawsuit.

A federal court in New Jersey recently held that the construction of an ambiguous policy term is not a matter suitable for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying AIG from avoiding coverage for a $67 million antitrust settlement. Rather, the only way to establish the meaning of an ambiguous term, the court explained, is to ascertain the intent of the parties, which requires “meaningful discovery.”

The Eleventh Circuit, in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., No. 17-12660, 2018 WL 834896, at * 3-4 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) (per curiam), recently held under Florida law that a homebuilder’s alleged failure to implement a proper drainage system that allowed for neighborhood flooding triggered a general liability insurer’s duty to defend because the allegations involved a potentially covered loss of use of covered property.

A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Byron of the Middle District of Florida has made clear that the actual words used in an insurance contract matter. The court, in Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Tactic Security Enforcement, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-01425 (M.D. FL. 2018), denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment attempting to rely on an exclusion to deny coverage to its policyholder.  The policyholder, Que Rico La Casa Del Mofongo, operated a restaurant establishment in Orlando, Florida, and sought coverage for two negligence lawsuits filed against it for allegedly failing to prevent a shooting and another violent incident on its premises.

An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs.

On January 9, 2018, the Northern District of California held that the Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California owed defense coverage to a pair of Scientology-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers for two lawsuits filed in Georgia and Oklahoma alleging that staff members had provided drugs and alcohol to patients, which resulted in injury and death. In Western World Ins. Co. v. Nonprofits Ins. Alliance of California, No. 14-cv-04466-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018), the court confirmed the broad scope of an insurer’s duty to defend under California law and rejected the insurer’s attempt to unreasonably expand the application of a “professional services” exclusion to avoid coverage.

In Selective Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. William P. White Racing Stables, Inc. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1882819.html), the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a liability insurer is not required to defend its insured against a claim for spoliation of evidence.  In the underlying case a jockey, James Rivera, was paralyzed in a racing accident when the horse he was riding suddenly collapsed.  Mr. Rivera sued the race track, Mr. Rivera’s employer, and the horse’s veterinarians, claiming that the horse was not fit to be raced due to the negligence of most of the defendants.  His claims against his employer, White Racing Stables, did not assert negligence but alleged that by failing to preserve the horse’s remains, White Racing had violated Florida’s workers compensation law by failing to investigate and pursue Mr. Rivera’s claims against the other defendants.  He also asserted a claim for spoliation.

In an article published in Law360, Hunton & Williams LLP partners Walter Andrews, Malcolm Weiss, and Paul Moura discuss two recent decisions in Tree Top Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 1:15-CV-03155-SMJ, 2017 WL 5664718 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2017).  There, the Eastern District of Washington rejected an insurer's attempt to escape insurance coverage for a Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against juice-maker Tree Top Inc.

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court held that a Chapter 558 notice of construction defect constitutes a “suit” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy sufficient to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. The opinion can be found here, and our prior blog posts on this case here and here.

A New York trial court held last week in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., Index No. 651096/2012 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017) (Bransten, J.) that an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to provide insurance coverage over modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence.

In Centurion Med. Liab. Protective Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gonzalez, No. CV 17-01581 RGK (JCx), 2017 BL 392431 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017), Centurion Medical Liability Protective Risk Retention Group sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend a lawsuit alleging that its insureds—a group of medical practitioners—committed professional negligence during the delivery of a newborn child.  Centurion argued that it had no defense obligation because its insureds did not notify Centurion of the lawsuit within 20 days after it was filed, as required under the policy.

In an article appearing in Law360, Hunton & Williams insurance partner, Michael Levine, weighs in on Office Depot’s pending Ninth Circuit appeal of a district court ruling that Office Depot is not entitled to coverage for a California False Claims Act case alleging that the office supply chain overbilled public agency customers.  The decision is premised on a finding that California Insurance Code Section 533 — which precludes coverage for a policyholder's willful acts — applies to the entire underlying CFCA action, including allegations of reckless and negligent conduct.  ...

Corporate policyholders should carefully consider insurance coverage implications when structuring mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions that may impact available insurance assets. A New Jersey federal court recently granted summary judgment for a surviving bank asserting coverage rights under a D&O policy issued to an entity that dissolved in a statutory merger, based in part on the wording of the parties' merger agreement structuring the transaction in accordance with the New Jersey Business Corporation Act ("NJBCA").

A federal district court judge has dismissed one of a poultry farm's claims for "remediation costs" against its insurer with prejudice, but allowed the other to proceed. In Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, Rembrandt brought suit against its insurer for losses it sustained after a bird flu epidemic broke out at its farms in 2015.  Regulators ultimately ordered Rembrandt to quarantine its facilities and put down millions of birds, forcing Rembrandt to spend millions of dollars to purchase new chicks to repopulate its farms.

In football as in life, the best defense is often a good offense. But, that adage does not always play well in litigation. In Riddell, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B275482, 2017 WL 3614305 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017), the California Court of Appeal blew the whistle on such a tactic, holding that an insurer could not use discovery tools in a coverage dispute with its policyholder in order to prejudice the policyholder's defense in an underlying lawsuit.

Hunton & Williams Insurance Recovery partner, Michael Levine, was quoted in an August 29, 2017 article appearing in Business Insurance, regarding the rapid increase in lawsuits, and insurance issues, surrounding concussions in high school and college sports.  Among other things, the article discusses a coverage lawsuit filed by Great American Assurance Company against Conference USA in federal court in Dallas, Texas.  In the lawsuit, the insurer alleges that its policy did not afford coverage for football concussion injuries because the policy included a “limited event ...

On August 29, 2017, my colleagues Lawrence J. Bracken, Michael Levine, and Geoffrey Fehling published an article in Law360 discussing the Ninth Circuit's recent decision rejecting coverage for the Los Angeles Lakers' director's and officer's (D&O) insurance claim arising from a fan's class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), based on a broadly-worded invasion of privacy exclusion in the Lakers' D&O insurance policy. A split Ninth Circuit panel held that "[b]ecause a TCPA claim is inherently an invasion of privacy claim, [the insurer] correctly concluded that [the claimant]'s TCPA claims fell under the Policy's broad exclusionary clause." The full article is available here.

A federal judge has ordered an insurer to show cause why he should refrain from dismissing the insurer's case against an NCAA football conference over the availability of insurance for concussion-related lawsuits. Back in May, Great American Assurance Company filed a complaint against Conference USA, seeking a declaration that it need not defend or indemnify the conference against a lawsuit brought by a former football player. In the underlying lawsuit, the former player alleged that he suffered neurodegenerative disorders and diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy ("CTE"), Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, mood swings, headaches, and anxiety stemming from repeated concussive brain impacts he sustained while playing for the University of Louisville. In the coverage action, Great American argues that a Limited Event Coverage endorsement added to Conference USA's policies did not include football as a covered event and therefore the policies do not provide coverage for "bodily injury" arising from football.

Liability insurance policies generally have an exclusion barring coverage for claims brought by the insured’s own employees. Many times, especially in the hospitality industry, a liability insurance policy provides coverage for various different companies. A common question is whether claims brought by an employee of one insured against another insured are covered under such a policy.

This past Monday, August 14, a federal magistrate judge explained to an insurer that “you can’t always get what you want” when he denied the carrier’s motion to dismiss claims arising from a July 4, 2015 Rolling Stones concert, concluding that the facts in the complaint allege a properly pled claim.

A Colorado district court held last week that a general liability insurer must defend a product disparagement claim despite a broadly-worded intellectual property exclusion in the policy. The court reached its ruling even though the alleged disparagement involved representations about patent infringement. In so holding, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to deny coverage where the “crux of the dispute” fell within the policy’s personal injury coverage part and the insurer had failed to show that the underlying allegations “unequivocally” fell within the ambiguously worded exclusion.

Dick’s Sporting Goods (“DSG”) sued a Chinese insurer, PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited Suzhou Branch (“PICC”), seeking coverage under a products liability insurance policy for personal injury claims arising out of a burst exercise ball. In Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. v. PICC Prop. & Cas. Co. Ltd. Suzhou Branch, No. 2:16-cv-01635-DSC-RCM (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2017), a federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania found that an insurance policy’s forum-selection clause required DSG to assert its claims in a Chinese court and, accordingly, recommended that DSG’s coverage claims be dismissed.

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.

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 ...

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 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.

My partner, Walter Andrews, recently commented in a Law360 article concerning the top insurance cases to watch in 2017.  The Law360 article, titled Insurance Cases to Watch in the 2^nd Half of 2017, features Andrews commenting on the impact of Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Century Indemnity Co., case number CTQ-2016-00005, in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where he points out how a win for Global Re could result in a huge windfall for the reinsurer by saving on its defense costs, since reinsurers typically must pay both indemnity and defense costs.  Andrews also ...

Last week, my partner, Syed Ahmad, commented on some of the biggest insurance rulings of the year in a Law360 feature article that can be found here.  Among those decisions is USAA Texas Lloyd’s Co. v. Menchaca, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that that policyholders may recover for bad faith in the absence of coverage under their policy.  Ahmad also discussed the Connecticut appeals court decision in R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Hartford Acc. And Indem. Co., and its ruling that insurers may not force policyholders to act as an insurer during policy periods in which insurance was not ...

Hunton & Williams' Insurance Coverage lawyers Syed Ahmad, Andrea DeField and Jennifer White were featured in the Firm’s Recall Roundup, where they discuss recent noteworthy decisions on insurance coverage for product recalls:

"Before the Court is, once again, the classic case of the insurer requesting relief from the consequences of the inartfully drafted, yet plain, terms of its insurance policy." So begins the Eleventh Circuit's recent opinion in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 16-14767, 2017 WL 1228550 (11th Cir. April 4, 2017), where the court held that the unambiguous language of Liberty's "Completed Work" exclusion did not bar coverage for injuries sustained by a motorist injured at a railroad crossing who later sued Norfolk Southern.

Hunton & Williams insurance partner Syed Ahmad was recently quoted in Law360 regarding a recent trend in judicial decisions favoring policyholders. Ahmad addresses an apparent trend by courts to refuse to allow technical violations to void coverage under complex insurance policies. A link to the Law360 article containing Ahmad’s comments can be found at 5 Insurance Rulings You May Have Missed In The 1st Quarter.

In a March 17, 2017 opinion, a Minnesota federal court rejected a financial institution bond carrier’s attempt to rescind the bond it issued to a credit union despite the credit union’s manager making a false statement in the bond application that she had no knowledge of any act which might give rise to a claim, after she had embezzled $3 million. See National Credit Union Administration Board v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., No. 16-139, 2017 WL 1047256 (D. Minn. Mar. 17, 2017).  The court refused to attribute the embezzler’s misrepresentation to her employer because, in embezzling the credit union’s money, she was working solely for her own benefit.

Policyholders are often surprised to hear that their policies cover more than the run-of-the-mill claim. For example, a general liability policy may cover a cyber-related loss. See our prior post. As a more recent example, a federal court in South Carolina found that a parent’s homeowners’ policy obligated an insurer to defend a college student against hazing allegations. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ingraham, No. 7:15-cv-3212 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2017).

On February 22^nd, Hunton insurance team partner Syed Ahmad and Mary Borja of Wiley Rein LLP will be speaking at the DC Bar’s CLE program “What Every Litigator Should Know About Insurance and How It May Impact Your Case Strategy.” The two hour class will discuss what steps an insured should take to protect claims, the role of insurance in defending and settling claims, and how to preserve attorney-client privileges. To learn more about the event, please visit: http://bit.ly/2k8SCQT.

Date and Time:
Wednesday, February 22, 2017 from 6 pm to 8:15 pm

Location:
D.C. Bar Conference ...

Hunton & Williams Insurance practice head, Walter Andrews, provides a brief, 5-minute overview, of why members of the real estate industry should be thinking about and obtaining appropriate cyber insurance protection for their real estate operations.  Mr. Andrews explains why cyber insurance is different from other insurance products and requires a careful examination of the particular assets and exposures that are to be protected.

A California appellate court held on Tuesday in Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., Inc., 2016 WL 7439032, __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ (Dec. 27, 2016), that a general liability insurer must cover amounts paid as attorneys’ fees in an underlying settlement even where no duty to indemnify was owed under the policies. The coverage was required under the policies’ Supplementary Payments provision – an often overlooked and underutilized section of the CGL policy that can be of significant value to policyholders.

On December 6, 2016, a Connecticut appellate court held that a contract exclusion in a public entity errors and omissions liability insurance policy did not relieve the insurer's duty to defend when there was at least a possibility of coverage based on the allegations against the insured. The court reasoned that the fact finder could determine that the underlying negligent misrepresentation claim may not have arisen out of contract, thereby putting the claim beyond the scope of the policy's contract exclusion.  For a more detailed analysis of the Town of Monroe v. Discover Prop. & ...

On November 2, 2016, a federal judge in California ruled that a Real Estate Property Managed endorsement in policies issued to a real estate manager negated a standard policy exclusion, but also rendered the policies excess to other available insurance. The case involved a dispute over coverage for a bodily injury claim involving “Pigeon Breeders Disease,” allegedly contracted due to the insured’s failure to keep pigeons away from a condo complex’s rooftop HVAC units. The plaintiff sued the property owners, Jerry and Betty Lee, and the property manager, Sierra Pacific Management Co. Inc. (Sierra Pacific).

On November 14, 2016, a federal judge in California denied summary judgment to Hanover Insurance Co. (Hanover), finding that class claims alleging a failure to reimburse reasonable business expenses were not excluded by a "wage-and-hour" exclusion contained in EPLI policies issued by Hanover. The lawsuit, brought by a former student of the Bellus Academy beauty school, alleged that Poway Academy (the owner of Bellus) and Beauty Boutique, Inc. (BBI) (operator of two other schools under the "Bellus" name), failed to compensate students for working on paying clients at an onsite salon and also failed to reimburse them for out-of-pocket costs to purchase necessary supplies. The lawsuit alleged a variety of wage-related claims. The lawsuit also alleged that the schools failed to reimburse necessary business expenses in violation of Section 2802 of the California Labor Code.

On November 9, 2016, my colleagues Syed Ahmad, Shawn Regan and Shannon Shaw, published an article in Corporate Counsel discussing a recent decision from New York’s highest court that may impact the exchange of information between policyholders and their insurers. The article addresses the impact of Ambac Assurance v. Countrywide Home Loans, in which the New York Court of Appeals held that an attorney-client communication disclosed to a third party during the period between the signing and closing of a merger will remain privileged only if the communication relates to a common ...

On August 15, we wrote a blog post (which can be accessed here) about how the Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the issue of whether Florida’s pre-suit process in contractor cases, under Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” under CGL policy language, which would trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. On October 25, various construction trade organizations and a nonprofit policyholder advocacy group, United Policyholders, urged the Florida Supreme Court to rule in favor of Altman Contractor Inc.’s (“Altman”) interpretation that a construction defect notice issued under Chapter 558 constitutes a “suit” under CGL policies because such a reading would promote insureds and insurers to resolve disputes with the underlying plaintiff out of court and because CGL policies should be construed broadly to provide coverage for pre-litigation proceedings.

On September 22, 2016, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected an insurer’s attempt to separately relitigate issues of liability previously decided in an underlying lawsuit.  The decision in Fountaincourt Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Fountain Dev., LLC, 360 Or. 341 (2016), reaffirms the settled liability paradigm that “an insurer cannot, in a subsequent proceeding, retry its insured’s liability, or alter the nature of the damages awarded in that proceeding.”  Id.

Congratulations, your cracker-jack defense team just won the underlying case. They also just lost your insurance coverage and you now must repay millions of dollars of defense costs. Seem odd? Not according to the Second Circuit in Petroterminal de Panama, S.A. v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 15-2941-cv (2d Cir., Sept. 8, 2016).

Earlier today, FC&S Legal published an article by Hunton & Williams insurance lawyers Mike Levine and Matt McLellan, discussing the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. H.D. Smith, LLC , in which the court held that a general liability insurer must defend a West Virginia pharmaceutical distributor in litigation brought by the State of West Virginia alleging it had contributed to an epidemic of prescription drug abuse.  The decision is significant for policyholders in West Virginia and elsewhere because it illustrates that the general liability ...

On August 2^nd, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Florida Supreme Court the issue of whether the notice and repair process of Chapter 558, Florida Statutes constitutes a "suit" under widely used CGL policy language, thus triggering the insurer's duty to defend. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Speciality Ins. Co., No. 15-12816 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2016).

A US District Court has ruled that a Professional Services Exclusion in a D&O policy does not bar coverage for suits alleging that a network of for-profit career colleges engaged in false marketing regarding the quality of education and job prospects that enrollees would receive. The decision in Education Affiliates Inc., et al. v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., stems from a series of lawsuits filed against the owner of the career colleges by former students and a subpoena and draft complaint served by the Florida Attorney General alleging that the colleges were deceptive in marketing their services to prospective students.

In June, Syed S. Ahmad and Jennifer E. White published an article in Risk Management Magazine about how commercial general liability (CGL) policies may help with trademark infringement litigation, despite common exclusions. A recent federal court opinion out of California conforms with the precedent we described in that article, holding that the insurer, Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC ("Great Lakes"), is required to defend In and Out Fashion, Inc. ("IOF") in a trademark suit filed by Forever 21, Inc. ("Forever 21"). The fashion giant alleged that IOF essentially sold Forever 21 products as its own by obscuring or removing Forever 21's marks. IOF requested that its CGL insurer, Great Lakes, defend it in the underlying suit. The relevant CGL policies covered damages because of "personal and advertising injury," defined to include "infring[ing] upon another's copyright, trade dress or slogan in your 'advertisement'." The policies excluded damages arising from trademark infringement and, according to the insurer, did not cover copyright, trade dress or slogan infringement in non-"advertisement" mediums. Great Lakes refused to defend IOF, and sued for declaratory relief regarding its obligations under the policies.

A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the absence of a duty to defend does not foreclose the potential for indemnity coverage under primary and umbrella liability policies. The decision in Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v. DP Engineering LLC, stems from a March 31, 2013, incident where an industrial crane collapsed at a nuclear generating facility near Russellville, Arkansas, causing significant damage and injuries, including one death.

Last week’s torrential rains have caused widespread flooding in West Virginia and surrounding areas. It is important that policyholders in these and other areas remain mindful of the substantial benefits that may be available to them for resulting economic and physical losses under ordinary business insurance policies. Policyholders also should be mindful of the interplay between coverage for flood under business insurance policies and assistance that may be available from state and federal agencies (e.g., FEMA). Finally, policyholders should stand ready to enforce their ...

In a June 1, 2016 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford et al. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc. required CNA Financial Corporation to defend E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.("Emson") – best known for its "As Seen on TV" products –in two class actions alleging a conspiracy to trap customers into recurring credit card charges and that Emson sold private consumer information that it obtained through its product sales.

The Eleventh Circuit confirmed in First Mercury Insurance Company v. Excellent Computing Distributors, Inc., No. 15-10120 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2016), that policyholders need not await adjudication of underlying liability litigation before obtaining a confirmation of coverage. The decision arose from a declaratory judgment action concerning the availability of insurance coverage for an underlying negligence suit against the policyholder. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, finding it "inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaration of the plaintiff's indemnity obligations absent a determination of the insureds' liability.” The court also noted that "significant factual questions necessary for a resolution of [the] declaratory judgment action are at issue in the state [court] action, and have yet to be resolved.” But the court did not identify the factual questions.

Yesterday, a federal court found that FIFA’s D&O insurer is obligated to reimburse and advance legal costs for the defense of Eduardo Li, one of the defendants in the FIFA racketeering and fraud prosecution. Li v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 15-cv-6099 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016). Li was the president of the Costa Rican soccer federation, an executive member of the soccer association for North and Central America (CONCACAF), and a member of FIFA standing committees. Along with other FIFA executives, he was indicted this past summer and charged with racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently ruled that the pollution exclusion in a CGL policy applied to a personal injury claim arising from ingestion of lead-based paint, rejecting an earlier court opinion that lead-based paint was “not clearly a ‘pollutant’ as defined in the policy.”  Read more here.

An article by Hunton lawyers Walter Andrews and Mike Levine, titled Insurance Planning for 2016: Top Ten Real Estate Liability Concerns, was recently published in the Spring 2016 issue of The Real Estate Finance Journal. The article addresses ten recurring liability concerns facing real estate professionals, investors, developers, lenders, owners and managers, and the associated insurance issues. The article addresses ways commercial insurance can be used to mitigate potential liability for those involved in complex real estate transactions. Andrews and Levine, along with ...

Syed Ahmad, a partner in the Hunton & Williams LLP insurance recovery practice, was quoted in an article by Law360 concerning the Fourth Circuit’s April 11, 2016 decision in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, No. 14-1944. In the decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of a Virginia district court, which held in August 2014 that Travelers must defend Portal Healthcare Solutions LLC against a proposed class action alleging that the policyholder’s failure to secure its server made medical records accessible by unauthorized users ...

On April 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a trial court’s decision that Travelers must defend a class action against its policyholder, Portal Healthcare Solutions, arising out of Portal’s alleged failure to safeguard confidential medical records. In the class action, the plaintiffs contended that Portal had allowed their private medical records to be accessed on the internet for more than four months by a simple Google search of a patient’s name. Portal sought coverage under provisions in two Travelers policies that provided coverage for alleged injury arising from “electronic publication of material” that “gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life” or that “discloses information about a person’s private life.”

On March 18, 2016, a Florida jury awarded Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) $115 million in damages in his lawsuit against Gawker.com. Mr. Bollea sued Gawker in Florida state court after it published portions of a video showing him having sex with the wife of a former friend, Todd Clem (a DJ better known as Bubba the Love Sponge). Mr. Bollea claimed he did not know he was being filmed and sought $100 million. He claimed, among other things, that his “goodwill, commercial value, and brand [were] substantially harmed” and that he suffered emotional distress by the posting. Following trial, the jury deliberated for six hours and awarded more than the amount sought: $55 million for economic harm and $60 million for emotional distress. On March 21, 2016, the jury awarded an additional $25 million in punitive damages.

As the New York Times recently reported, Bill Cosby joins the ranks of celebrity homeowners who have tapped defense coverage under their ordinary homeowner’s insurance. Others who paved the way include Roger Clemens, O.J. Simpson, and Bill Clinton. Each had “enhanced personal injury clauses” buried in the fine print of their policies that can provide a defense against lawsuits.¹ Bill Cosby has such a policy, and a federal court in California recently denied American International Group’s (“A.I.G.”) request to allow A.I.G. to immediately appeal an earlier decision which held that a “sexual misconduct” exclusion in Mr. Cosby’s homeowner’s policy did not limit this coverage and that A.I.G., therefore, owed a duty to defend Mr. Cosby against a lawsuit brought in California state court by Janice Dickinson (“Dickinson action”).² In denying A.I.G.’s request for an interim appeal, the court determined that it would be more efficient for the Ninth Circuit to “analyze all exclusions of the policy at the same time.”³

On Monday, a Tennessee jury awarded $55 million to FOX sportscaster Erin Andrews in her suit against Michael Barrett, her stalker, and the Marriott hotel where they both stayed. In 2008, Mr. Barrett secretly videotaped Ms. Andrews through a peephole as she changed clothes in her hotel room. Hotel staff had revealed that she was staying at the hotel and, upon Mr. Barrett’s request, gave him a room next to hers. Mr. Barrett’s surreptitious video of Ms. Andrews was later made public. Ms. Andrews sued Mr. Barrett, West End Hotel Partners, LLC (the owner/franchisee of the hotel) and Windsor Capital Group, Inc. (the operator of the hotel) for negligence, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress causing embarrassment. The jury found the hotel’s owner and operator 49% at fault, comprising approximately $27 million of the total verdict.

With nearly 2000 locations, the recent outbreaks linked to Chipotle restaurants involving three strains of E. coli, norovirus and Salmonella, have had a substantial impact on the fast-food chain’s supply chain.  In a recent article appearing in Risk Management Magazine, The Chipotle Outbreaks Highlight the Risks of Supply Chain Failures, Syed comments on the insurance issues that are likely to arise, and the ways those issues might be affected by the post-event conduct of affected companies.

Hunton & Williams LLP attorneys Mike Levine and Matt McLellan, along with Tim Monahan of Lockton Companies, LLC., presented to a group of risk managers and insurance professionals on Wednesday evening, February 17^th, about strategies and pitfalls in the claim presentation process. The event was well-attended and the audience was lively with questions for the presenters. A copy of the PowerPoint can be downloaded here. Key points discussed with the group include:

A federal court in New York has held that an insurer carries the burden of demonstrating which, if any, defense costs should be allocated to the defense of non-covered entities. High Point Design, LLC v. LM Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-7878, 2016 WL 426594 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016). The court ruled that once the policyholder established that amounts were spent defending covered claims, the burden shifts to the insurer to show that certain of those amounts resulted from the defense of other claims against non-covered entities. To meet that burden, the insurer was required to show that the relevant costs would not have been incurred but for the non-covered claims.

A recent ruling by a New York trial court highlights the duty of an insurer to timely respond to its policyholders. In Robert Vargas, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., No. 154323/13 (N.Y. Sup. Jan. 15, 2016), the court required an insurer to defend and indemnify its policyholder against lead exposure claims, even though the policy contained a lead exclusion, because the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was untimely.

After our December 15, 2015 post about the Discussion Draft of the Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance, the American Law Institute released Council Draft No. 2 on December 28, 2015. Relevant to my last post, Council Draft No. 2 contains revisions to §19 of Chapter 2, addressing the duty to defend. While the Reporters’ Memorandum notes that no substantive changes have been made to the black letter law of this section, the comments section has been revised to reflect a proposed intermediate approach. ALI Restatement of the Law: Liability Insurance, Council Draft No. 2 (not approved), Dec. 20, 2105 p. xiv. These revisions reflect a more moderate position than that taken in the previous Discussion Draft.

On December 14, 2015, a federal court in California denied Evanston Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss Uber’s breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Evanston Insurance Company v. Uber Technologies, No. 15-cv-03988-WHA (Dec. 14, 2015). The case concerns Evanston’s duty to indemnify Uber for claims arising from two car accidents during which drivers were allegedly logged on to the Uber App.

A federal judge in Indiana recently found that an insurer is not entitled to control the defense of its insured because a conflict of interest exists where the insurer is in litigation with the insured over an alleged policy breach arising out of the manner in which underlying litigation would be defended. Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00006-RLM-SLC, N.D. Ind. (Dec. 7, 2015).

At present, the general rule is that an insurer that breaches its duty to defend still may contest coverage. Signature Dev. Companies, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 230 F.3d 1215, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). However, the tides may soon change. The Discussion Draft of the Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance proposes that “[a]n insurer that breaches the duty to defend a claim loses the right to assert any control over the defense or settlement of the claim and the right to contest coverage for the claim.” See § 19, “Consequences of Breach of the Duty to Defend, ALI Restatement of the Law: Liability Insurance, Discussion Draft (April 30, 2015), p. 147. The proposed Restatement explains, “[t]he forfeiture-of-coverage-defense rule discourages insurers from attempting to convert a duty-to-defend policy into an after-the-fact defense-cost-reimbursement policy.” Id. at 148. The Restatement further explains that insurers should be wary to outright deny a defense. Rather, it suggests that “[t]he proper procedure is to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights and then, if appropriate, institute a declaratory-judgment action to terminate the duty to defend…If the insurer cannot, or does not choose to, file a declaratory-judgment action, it can preserve its coverage defenses by refusing to settle the claim while continuing to provide a defense (subject to the risks attendant to breach of the duty to make reasonable settlement decisions).” Id. at 149.¹