Policyholder Pulse
In November 2018, we noted that the California Supreme Court had agreed to resolve Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a case that hinged on the importance and application of California’s notice-prejudice rule. On August 29, 2019, the court issued its decision: a policyholder-friendly ruling that opposes technical forfeitures of insurance coverage. Although further proceedings are needed to determine whether Pitzer will ultimately benefit from this victory, the principles it articulates are of immediate interest to policyholders in California and across the country.
In a 
Disputed insurance claims often end in confidential settlements, as do many insured liabilities. But does it matter if lawyers sign a settlement agreement approving “as to form and content”? Last month, the California Supreme Court answered that question with a resounding “Yes!” In 
Since 2008, Minnesota has had a bad-faith statute that penalizes an insurance company for its unreasonable denial of a first-party insurance claim. But it was only earlier this month that a Minnesota appellate court interpreted the statute to require insurance companies to conduct a reasonable investigation and fairly evaluate its results to establish a reasonable basis for denying the claim. In so doing, the court rejected the interpretation offered by the insurance company: that the policyholder must prove there are no facts or evidence upon which the insurance company could rely to deny coverage. That interpretation would have allowed insurers to rely on post hoc justifications for denying coverage. The court’s rejection of that argument is an important development in bad-faith law that will likely affect both suits brought in Minnesota and those in other jurisdictions where courts might look to this decision for guidance in connection with many types of insurance claims. 
The Supreme Court of Texas delivered good news to policyholders insured under a “Joint Venture Provision” endorsement commonly used in the oil and gas industry. In 
Does the coverage in commercial general liability (CGL) policies for violations of the right to privacy extend to unwanted intrusions, or is it limited to the disclosure of personal information to a third party? On a recent request for clarification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 
A recent decision in the Middle District of Florida, 
New Jersey’s greatest contribution to American rock ’n’ roll, Bruce Springsteen, was nearly relegated to obscurity by a marijuana bust involving his bandmates. Rock legend has it that one of The Boss’ early bands, the Castilles, was forced to break up when some of its members were caught with cannabis in Freehold in 1967. While it would have been unthinkable back then, New Jersey is now on the precipice of marijuana legalization. Gov. Phil Murphy’s campaign platform included a commitment to legalizing recreational use, and three cannabis-related bills have passed through New Jersey Senate and Assembly committees and await the legislature’s final vote, which could happen this month. Legalization would transform New Jersey’s economy, and may also be a litmus test for nearby New York. Looking ahead, business owners, entrepreneurs and investors who are contemplating entry into the cannabis space, when and if legalization occurs, would do well to educate themselves about the potential insurability of various exposures facing the industry.
Before a court can resolve a dispute, it often needs to determine what law applies to that dispute. In certain insurance cases, that question will appear to have an easy answer. Some policies include explicit choice-of-law provisions indicating that they should be interpreted and applied according to the laws of a particular state, and such provisions are generally enforceable. But a case currently before the California Supreme Court highlights an important exception to this general rule and—should the policyholder prevail—would offer potential relief from the impact of stringent policy requirements.