New York’s Martin Act has a lot of Wall Street and energy industry companies concerned about potential investigations into their respective stances on climate change. In the client alert “When Attorneys General Attack,” colleagues Sheila Harvey, Joseph Jean, Carolina Fornos and Benjamin Tievsky examine the act and discuss strategies for managing and obtaining insurance coverage if such investigations do occur.
Sometimes a phrase is repeated so often that we forget what it meant in the first place. Perhaps that is the case with the phrase “the duty to defend is broader than the duty indemnify.” This statement has been made by courts frequently and repeatedly over at least the past 50 years in virtually every case in which an insurer has sought to avoid defending its policyholder against a lawsuit or other third-party liability. Yet insurers continue to confuse the scope of their duty to defend with the scope of their duty to indemnify. The basic distinction is this—an insurer owes a duty to defend when its policyholder faces allegations that could potentially result in liability covered by the policy; an insurer owes a duty to indemnify when a policyholder’s actual liability falls within the coverage provided by the policy.
In Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reaffirmed that ambiguities in an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer. Continue Reading ›
Houdini managed an escape from a straight jacket while suspended 40 feet in the air. But that trick turned out to be easier than a primary insurer’s recent attempt to escape its duty to defend in California. In Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615, Ct. App. Dist. 4, Oct. 23, 2015 (Underwriters), the California Court of Appeal ruled that an “other insurance” clause in a CGL policy that purported to eliminate an insurer’s duty to defend if another insurer picked up the defense was unenforceable. Continue Reading ›
Acquiring adequate insurance coverage against environmental risks, in particular the spill or release of pollutants or contaminants in day-to-day operations, is important to many construction businesses confronting the requirements of environmental regulation. For example, EPA’s hazardous waste rules require permittees (at both the state and federal level) to demonstrate financial responsibility for the operations of these facilities, including site closure and post-closure care, and coverage for sudden and accidental discharges. This requirement can be satisfied by proof of acceptable insurance coverage
. In addition, having such insurance often assists companies facing the challenge of an extensive and prolonged Superfund cleanup. Many courts have ruled that the receipt of a Superfund Notice Letter from EPA triggers the responsibility of the insurer to provide the coverage in the policy. Continue Reading ›
The universe of insurers still available to pay long-tail liability claims (e.g., asbestos, pollution, and other health hazards) is getting smaller every year. Significant domestic insurers like The Home, Midland and Mission declared bankruptcy years ago. Significant London Market companies continue to fade away, depriving policyholders with historic London Market policies of the opportunity to fully collect upon claims made and satisfied under those policies. Continue Reading ›
California’s Supreme Court has closed a loophole of its own creation. The 12-year-old Henkel decision—which permitted insurers to avoid liability for losses when the insured subsequently assigned its policy rights to another entity—has been overruled. Continue Reading ›
In Texas and other states, the mineral owner can freely use the surface estate to the extent reasonably necessary for the exploration, development and production of oil and gas. That includes activities such as building roads, drilling wells and transporting equipment and personnel. But frustrated property owners are incr
easingly bringing nuisance claims based on bright lights, loud noises, traffic, dust, odors, wastewater and other effects of these activities. A question facing the oil and gas industry is whether the costs of such nuisance claims are covered by insurance.
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals recently held that whether “prompt” notice was given to an insurer of a claim occurring over three and a half years after a hurricane caused damages to a condominium is a question of fact that must be given to the jury. This ruling confirms that the date on which an insureds’ duty to report a claim is triggered under an insurance policy’s notice provision is an issue of fact not ripe for summary judgment. The case is Laquer v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
If your company faces liability arising out of exposure to asbestos-containing products or materials, it may pay—a lot—to take a second look at your liability insurance policies containing asbestos exclusions. They may not exclude your loss after all. On March 3, 2015, a Pennsylvania federal district court ruled in General Refractories Co. v. First State Insurance Co. that an asbestos exclusion in two general liability policies is ambiguous, and does not bar coverage for a multitude of asbestos-related lawsuits against a manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-containing products. Continue Reading ›
Policyholder Pulse