In the recent and significant Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB) decision the High Court in England clarified the limited circumstances in which claims for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and the tort of negligence might be advanced by individuals for compensation for distress relating to a cyber-security breach where the proposed
Latest from Risk and Recovery
New York Insurance Law: Under Construction
Imagine you hired a general contractor to renovate the master bathroom of your home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to do the plumbing work, but the subcontractor botched the job, resulting in a massive leak causing extensive damage to other areas of your home and valuable personal property. You demand full compensation for the
Insurance Coverage in the Post-Weinstein Era
With new headlines involving sexual harassment and other inappropriate sexual conduct continuing to emerge on a daily basis, insurance coverage for claims that might emerge is something every company should consider.
Recently, media reports have discussed settlements of shareholder derivative claims against members of the boards of directors and other senior executives of public companies. These settlements illustrate both the type of
Five Ways to Prepare for Business Interruption and Property Damage Insurance Claims in a Natural Disaster
The extraordinary images and reports of the devastation from Hurricane Harvey have filled the news outlets. While the focus remains on the human toll and concern for the well-being of friends, colleagues and business partners who may be personally affected by this disaster, its impact will extend far beyond those whose lives and businesses were
Another State Court Limits the Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses
We recently wrote about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court to limit the enforceability of clauses in third party liability insurance policies that prohibit the policyholder from assigning its interests in the policy without the insurer’s prior consent. The court held that these so-called anti-assignment clauses are not enforceable after
Seventh Circuit Issues Stern Warning For Insurers That Reject Their Duty to Defend
The first line of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion says it all: “This case provides a warning for insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds.” As the court’s admonishment suggests, insurers that improperly refuse to defend an insured do so at their own risk and – if not done through a reservation of rights or
California Supreme Court Limits Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses
In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the court removed a significant obstacle facing companies that want to assign their interests in a third party insurance policy to a successor company as part of a corporate restructuring or sale. It held that an
Georgia Supreme Court Complicates Policyholders’ Ability to Settle Claims Brought Against Them
As we previously reported here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked the Georgia Supreme Court to weigh in on the coverage dispute in Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co. concerning consent-to-settle and no-action provisions in an excess insurance policy. The state high court’s answer was a
Texas Says EPA Administrative Actions under CERCLA Trigger Duty to Defend
As any company facing EPA administrative action under CERCLA knows, the financial risk and defense costs associated with those proceedings can be the same as the risk and costs of an EPA lawsuit under CERCLA. But insurers have argued that administrative actions are very different from suits under standard CGL policies. Those policies, insurers argue,
Third Circuit Finds Insured v. Insured Exclusion Precludes Recovery of Defense Costs
Many corporate executives may be under the impression that the defense costs they incur when sued for actions taken in their role as officers of the company would be covered by a “Management Protection” insurance policy. The name of the insurance policy even suggests this. However, executives are not always covered by such a policy.