No matter the industry, businesses continue to face ever-escalating workers’ comp insurance premiums. In an effort to keep costs down, many companies are turning to an increasingly popular alternative to traditional “guaranteed cost” or “retrospective premium” workers’ comp programs: “large deductible” (LD) policies. LD policies theoretically give businesses greater control over claims exposure and costs while at the same time satisfying regulatory requirements by having an insurance company as the ultimate guarantor of claims payments. But while some businesses may save money with LD policies, they may also find their assets tied up for years unless they challenge some common—and often problematic—terms and conditions of their LD policy programs.
New York is a tricky forum for policyholders pursuing insurance coverage claims. In particular, New York jurisprudence has long failed to recognize and address causes of action for bad faith. Historically, insureds seeking to impose extracontractual liability have been required to meet the high bar of showing “egregious tortious conduct” and “a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally.” Contract-based claims invoking good faith and fair dealing often fared no better, with courts routinely dismissing insureds’ bad faith claims because they viewed them as “duplicative” of the policyholders’ underlying claims for breach of the insurance contract.
In 2008, a glimmer of hope emerged from New York’s highest court. In Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Co., the court recognized a policyholder’s right to recover consequential damages in excess of policy limits where (1) the damages were the direct result of improper claims handling, and (2) the damages were foreseeable by the parties at the time of contracting. Although this decision did not create a bad faith cause of action, it did provide policyholders with a potential avenue to recoup consequential damages where the insurer violated its implicit contract-based covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The failure to include and/or accurately describe property locations is among the most common points of tension we see in litigation over wide-area catastrophe loss issues (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes) between the insured and its property insurance carriers. However, many first-party property policies offer devices to ensure that the policyholder is properly protected. When coverage for a location becomes disputed, the policyholder can put pressure on the carrier by resorting to “gap-filler” endorsements that are widely available, if underutilized.
The insurance company may have prospectively protected itself the day your policy went into effect by adding an “occurrence limit of liability” endorsement. This clever insurance carrier device, which has become common in the last decade, is intended to limit the carrier’s exposure at each particular location, placing the onus on the insured to put every “location” on a master list with correctly reported values for each category of exposure (e.g., business interruption, property damage, contents exposure, etc.).
Florida is a hotbed for insurance claims, from run-of-the mill auto accidents to pervasive construction defects to post-hurricane business interruptions, and everything in between. Insurance companies are likely to deny many of those claims—whether or not that denial is proper—hoping that their policyholders will be unwilling to spend the time and money required to demonstrate coverage. But with its new decision in Johnson v. Omega Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court reminds policyholders that they have a powerful tool against improper denials of coverage—the awarding of attorney’s fees. Continue reading →
While our brains may feel like they are fused with the computers, smart phones, and other devices we use on a constant basis, a direct connection between these machines and our brains is still (mostly) a thing of the future. So, even as companies continue to strengthen and refine their network security systems against cybercrime, the human brain can remain a weak link for criminals to exploit. Unfortunately for some policyholders, this time-honored tactic of targeting the human element involved with a technology may actually fall right into a gap in companies’ insurance coverage, as highlighted in the Fifth Circuit’s decision this month in Apache Corporation v. Great American Insurance Company.
Insurance is not only a risk transfer tool, but also a valuable asset. Certain coverages, however, are not purchased or pursued by multinational companies transacting business in the United States because there are nuanced differences between international and U.S. insurance programs and law. These companies, often with global offices, will be best served by having counsel experienced in such nuances conduct a diagnostic review of their insurance policies. Not only may potential coverage gaps be identified, but a company will be better able to plan ahead and negotiate more favorable coverage terms before a loss arises.
When an insurance company pays a claim by its insured, the insurance company acquires a legal right to pursue a so-called “subrogation” claim against another party who may be responsible for the damage. The insurance company “stands in the shoes” of its insured to seek damages from whoever caused the loss. Typically, construction contracts include a “waiver of subrogation” clause that limits the right of the insurer to file a subrogation action against another participant in the construction project.
These waiver of subrogation clauses are good public policy and generally benefit all project participants insofar as they (1) avoid excessive finger pointing among parties who are involved in an ongoing commercial relationship (and thereby encourage immediate repairs in lieu of a lawsuit) and (2) are economically efficient because only one party needs to value and insure the risk.
After tearing through the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew’s path brought it north to the southeastern coast of the United States, bringing evacuations, business closures and damages to the region. In the storm’s aftermath, colleagues Tamara Bruno, Colin Kemp, Peter Gillon, Vince Morgan and Joe Jean discuss important steps to take to maximize insurance recovery following such an event.
If you believe the news, I may be lucky to make it out of the driveway alive on my morning commute tomorrow. That microwave-ready triple egg breakfast sausage sandwich I stuff into an increasingly jowly face on my way to the car? Recalled. The overpriced technology-assisted car that practically backs itself out of the driveway as I struggle to wipe away the remnants of my savory breakfast? Recalled. Each morning brings fresh product recall announcements involving everything from contaminated sunflower seeds to exploding toilets. This year contamination recalls in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated industries alone rose 167% from the first quarter to the second quarter. The exponential rise of product recalls stems from a convergence of factors, including increased governmental regulation and more extensive and technologically sophisticated testing of products.
Over the past four months, a trio of cases has introduced a policyholder-friendly breath of fresh air to Iowa insurance coverage law as Iowa state and federal courts have found that defective workmanship may constitute a covered occurrence under the plain language of CGL policies.