Policyholder Pulse
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.).
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.
it prevents the insurer from “pass[ing] the incidence of loss, at least in part, from itself to its own insured and thus avoid[ing] the coverage which the insured purchased.”
insured,” to require collection of the full amount of primary polices in order to exhaust them. The Zeig court emphasized that a compromise payment by the primary insurer discharges the limits of the primary coverage, while the excess insurer is unharmed, since it must pay only the amount exceeding the attachment point of its policy.
duty to defend a contractor who should have expected property damage resulting from its use of certain equipment on a construction project. The decision cautions contractors around the country to consider the expected consequences of their on-site actions to avoid arguments from insurers that any resulting damages are not accidental.
Most of the time, such insurer demands are unjustified. But companies should understand when and under what circumstances insurers might seek reimbursement or recoupment of defense costs so they can avoid agreeing to do so unnecessarily or at least plan in advance financially.
Orion Insurance Company is now set to join its mythic namesake as an artifact of history, though without the long-lasting twinkle. Barring one important, if remote, opt-out scenario, Orion and its sister company, the London and Overseas Insurance Company Limited (collectively OIC), are expected to dim and fade away over the next few years.
The particular information request at issue in Ash Grove Cement is known as a “104(e) letter,” which is issued by the EPA under section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). As companies that have owned or operated a contaminated site know from experience, a 104(e) letter or a similar request under state environmental law typically is the first step in a regulatory enforcement process under which they face strict and retroactive liability for the costs of investigating and cleaning up the site. The ruling in Ash Grove Cement means that defense cost coverage begins at this critical juncture and continues until site investigation and cleanup is completed.