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.
They do some things differently in London. But just because they have different customs across the pond doesn’t mean they get to play by different rules—at least not in American courts. 
That was the message a federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York delivered when she ruled that Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s had waived attorney-client privilege by communicating with their counsel through a London broker.
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.
A unanimous panel of the Illinois Appellate Court recently held that three insurers have a duty to defend any case in which the bare underlying allegations—if proved—would render their insured liable, regardless of extrinsic facts. This sweeping ruling confirms that the duty to defend is a form of “litigation insurance,” protecting the insured against the costs of being wrongly sued, however groundless the claims against it may be. The case is Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al. Continue Reading ›
Policyholder Pulse