Over the past decade, technological innovations have quickly transformed how companies operate their IT infrastructure. Traditional on-site servers and hardware have often been replaced or supplemented by off-site solutions such as cloud computing, SaaS (Software-as-a-Service), virtualized servers, or “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) programs. These developments allow a business’s IT operations to be spread across a complex IT ecosystem rather than confined to physical devices located on its premises. They have the potential to reduce costs while expanding the computing capabilities at a company’s fingertips.
Fifth Circuit Reminds Policyholders to Be “Not Less Than” Careful When Drafting Master Service Agreements
Just as the oilfield fuels the modern economy, master service agreements (MSAs) fuel the modern oilfield. But while almost every MSA contains indemnity and insurance clauses, experienced oilfield lawyers will advise their clients that no two are identical. Determining how these unique contractual provisions apply to losses and interact with available liability coverage is a nuanced process that frequently results in litigation.
Level Unlocked: Insurance Recovery Options for Video Game Manufacturers Facing Video Game Addiction Lawsuits
In the last few years, the video game industry has been hit with lawsuits accusing certain games of fostering addictive behaviors, especially among younger players. These lawsuits often cite features like loot boxes, microtransactions, and reward systems, which are designed to enhance player engagement, as in-game mechanisms that push players toward compulsive play and psychological harm. Plaintiffs claim that game developers either knew or should have known about these potential risks and failed to mitigate them.
Hurricanes Helene and Milton: 8 Key Insurance Coverage Issues Impacting the Availability and Amount of Recovery
In the aftermath of two powerful hurricanes the process of assessing the damage and rebuilding begins. Businesses suffered billions of dollars in losses during hurricanes Helene and Milton, both in physical property damage and disruption of their business (i.e., lost profits). That is precisely why businesses purchase property and other commercial insurance—to indemnify them when disaster strikes. However, it is not uncommon for businesses to be unpleasantly surprised when they present a claim to discover that their insurers are unwilling to stand behind the full insurance coverage they promised. This is particularly so in the case of a substantial loss, and even more so in the aftermath of a wide-area catastrophe—such as a hurricane or other natural disaster—because such catastrophes have negative repercussions on insurers given the number of impacted policyholders.
This article highlights eight property adjustment and coverage issues. Understanding and being thoughtful about these issues now, including working with coverage counsel as appropriate, is critical to maximizing insurance recovery.
Hurricanes Helene and Milton: Insurance Implications
Hurricane Helene struck Florida’s Big Bend region as a category 4 hurricane on September 25, 2024, and continued to move northeast. The storm caused widespread power outages and catastrophic damage across Florida, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Georgia and other states. It has brought life-threatening storm surges in its aftermath. Now, less than two weeks later, Hurricane Milton is making its way toward Florida’s western coast and threatens to cause additional catastrophic damage.
Hurricane Insurance Checklist
The below checklist includes essential considerations and steps to take for property owners and businesses that stand to be affected by hurricanes.
- Make an inventory of risk pathways that could affect your business.
- Identify essential supply chains, raw materials or parts providers and service providers to assess impact of potential disruptions.
- Stress-test what would happen if each supply chain were interrupted.
- Identify markets and customers whose disruption could affect your business.
- Identify potential sources of liability if your business was impacted by the hurricanes.
- Failure to meet contracted-for requirements
- Failure to take adequate measures to protect customers from harm
- Management failure to train employees to plan adequately for impacts, with concomitant claims by shareholders, regulatory authorities, customers, third parties
- Other?
- Identify other constituencies that might be affected by disruption to your business and risks associated with such disruption.
- Identify essential supply chains, raw materials or parts providers and service providers to assess impact of potential disruptions.
- Before any disruption occurs, identify and review insurance products that may respond.
-
- First-party Property and Business Interruption insurance—for stoppage or slowdown of your own business, typically due to physical loss or damage to property
- Contingent Business Interruption (CBI) or Supply Chain Risk insurance—for disruption of supply chains and, potentially, markets
- Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance—for liability to third parties arising from bodily injury or, potentially, personal injury or property damage
- Directors & Officers (D&O), Management Liability, Errors & Omissions (E&O), and Professional Liability insurance—for claims that management personnel failed to take appropriate measures to protect the business or third parties
- Event Cancellation insurance
- Travel insurance
- Workers’ Compensation insurance—adopt protocols and procedures to help employees make a record establishing work-relatedness in submitting claims
- Review business contracts to assess whether you are obligated to provide coverage to customers/clients, joint venture partners, contractors or others for risks outlined above.
- Review customer contracts to assess whether you are entitled to coverage provided by customers/clients, joint venture partners, contractors or others for risks outlined above.
- If so, request copies of relevant insurance policies (not just certificates of insurance) and review them to assess potential coverage.
Narrowing the Professional Services Exclusion: Policyholder Lessons “Arising Out of” Practice Fusion v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Company
A recent decision by a California appellate court in Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Company, denying the policyholder more than $118 million in Directors & Officers liability coverage based on an expansive professional services exclusion, is a sobering reminder that this nettlesome exclusion—when over-broadly applied, as was the case here—may render your D&O coverage worthless. The mere fact that Practice Fusion’s insurers asserted this exclusion in the circumstances of this claim should remind brokers and risk managers of the importance of eliminating, or at least narrowing, professional services exclusions where there is any potential argument that the insured is engaged in providing any form of “professional services.” Although it is of course appropriate to fill any gaps created by the exclusion with commensurate Errors & Omissions coverage, E&O policies do not provide the same scope of coverage, or even limits, that are available under D&O policies.
A Shock to the System: Potential Ramifications of the Electric Energy Coal Ash Decision and Insurance Recovery
In what was likely a shock to coal-fired electric utilities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held on June 28, 2024, that proposed decisions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January 2022—prohibiting coal-fired power plants from closing coal ash impoundments where coal ash is in contact with groundwater—were a “straightforward application” of a previously promulgated agency rule. In Electric Energy, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, the appeals court validated EPA’s actions as a proper exercise of authority. This ruling ends (at least for now) a regulatory odyssey that began in 2015.
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Ruling Creates a Nightmare for D&O Policyholders Facing Qui Tam Actions
When is a claim “brought” against an insured?
A Delaware bankruptcy court’s answer to this seemingly innocuous question turned into a nightmare for the estate of a bankrupt insured. The insured was deprived of coverage under a claims-made D&O policy for a claim filed three years after the retroactive date of the policy, on the basis that the claim arose from the same facts as an earlier False Claims Act suit that was filed before the policy’s retroactive date but never served upon the insured.