In this month’s update, we’re discussing cases involving climate change, hurricanes, cryptocurrency, and aerial spraying.

We begin in Hawaii where that state’s high court became the first to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants under an insurance policy.  The court also considers whether there is an “occurrence” when the insured is aware of the

There is a famous scene in The Pink Panther Strikes Again where inspector Clouseau asks a hotel clerk if his dog bites, to which the clerk responds “no.” When Clouseau goes to pet the dog, it viciously bites him on the hand. Clouseau says, “I thought you said your dog did not bite!” The clerk

In this month’s update, we discuss Russian-seized planes, Starbucks-caused traffic jams, a squabble over the use of a family name, a restaurant’s pandemic-based loss, a poorly built house, and whether insurance covers any of these claims.

We begin with the restaurant’s business interruption claim.  There, the California Supreme Court had to decide whether a virus

We touch upon various issues in our August insurance update.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts considers the meaning of “surface waters” and whether the sublimit for floods applies when pooled water on a roof infiltrates a building.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals considers whether a pollution exclusion applies to a gasoline leak at a

It’s not often that the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on insurance issues. That’s because the McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the primary authority to regulate the business of insurance. So when the Supreme Court speaks on insurance, even in the context of a bankruptcy plan, it’s noteworthy for insurers.

That’s why we begin with the

Most pandemic-related businesses interruption insurance claims failed because policyholders could not show a direct physical loss. But some California courts issued conflicting decisions. The California Supreme Court has now clarified California law and joins the majority of jurisdictions finding no coverage for these types of claims.

A scooter rider sought PIP benefits under New Jersey’s

Careening race cars, missing diamonds, and gold treasure provide some of the backdrop for insurance issues that courts had to decide this past month.

We begin in Pennsylvania where the state’s high court reined in some loose analysis by the lower courts.  If a controlled substances exclusion applies to “bodily injury” claims and “bodily injury”

Our April 2024 Insurance Update is now available.

Dominance was the theme of this year’s NCAA basketball tournament, with the UConn men’s team winning back-to-back championships and the South Carolina women’s team reclaiming the title with a perfect record. But let’s not forget about the NC State Wolfpack’s magical March run. Led by Miracle Mike and the two DJs,

Our March 2024 Insurance Update is now available.

We begin with three state supreme court decisions answering these questions:

• A year before an insured bought its claims-made policy it received an attorney’s letter threatening mass tort litigation. The first suits were filed when the claims-made policy was in effect. Is the claims-made policy triggered? The Delaware Supreme Court decides

In this month’s insurance update, we address:

• Whether opioid suits allege an occurrence
• Whether the recurring presence of wild turkeys is “infestation”
• Whether improper copying of an industry publication was in the performance of professional services
• Whether wildfire dust is a “pollutant”
• Whether an aircraft exclusion applies to a partially disassembled plane
• And whether

In our January insurance update, we include three state cases addressing some less common situations.

It’s not often that a pollution exclusion is interpreted in the context of an auto policy.  But the South Dakota Supreme Court considered whether the exclusion barred a claim arising from a contaminated wheat delivery.

Village officials made it very

Our December 2023 Insurance Update features a few firsts from state high courts. For the first time:

• The Supreme Court of Hawaii addresses reimbursement of defense costs.
• The Supreme Court of Illinois addresses coverage for construction defects.
• The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addresses trigger.

At the federal level:

• The

In our November 2023 Insurance Update, we address consent, “occurrence,” malicious prosecution, claims-made reporting requirements, and the duty to defend.

Consent has seemed to plague TV-maker Vizio. First, it got into trouble with consumers by allegedly secretly collecting information about their viewing habits and selling that information without the consumers’ consent. Then, it reached a

Robert Tugander and Greg Mann wrote an article for Law360 on one of the most widely litigated issues: whether the insured’s liability stems from an “occurrence.”

To read the article, click the link below.

Illinois Trump Tower Ruling Illuminates Insurance ‘Occurrence’

Here’s what we discuss in our October 2023 Insurance Update.

Illinois: Environmental Suits Alleging Non-Compliance with Laws and Regulations Did Not Assert an “Occurrence”

Massachusetts (federal): Insurer May Consider Sums Uninsured Party Would Have Paid Under Joint Defense Agreement When Assessing Costs Reasonably Related to Insured’s Defense

Delaware: Professional Services Exclusion Does Not Apply to

We touch upon several topics in our September 2023 Insurance Update.

We begin with two federal circuit court rulings on late notice – one involving a claims-made policy and the other an occurrence policy. In these cases, the courts address whether an insurer can maintain a late notice defense when it was aware of the

We bring you our August 2023 Insurance Update.

Mental state, in some form, is the common theme running through our first three cases this month.

The Fifth Circuit decides whether directors and officers of an ice cream company, accused of breaching their fiduciary duties to shareholders, were entitled to a defense under the company’s CGL

We bring you our July 2023 Insurance Update.

We begin with two cases about late notice.  First, the Kentucky Supreme Court considers whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to claims-made-and-reported policies.  Second, the Ninth Circuit provides an example of when prejudice can be determined as a matter of law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court addresses the contours

Courts took up some interesting insurance questions this past month.  Here’s some we address in our June Insurance Update.

When a government sponsored cyberattack infects computers worldwide, does the war exclusion apply?

A professional liability policy will often pay the insured’s costs of responding to subpoenas or disciplinary proceedings.  What about search warrants?

People pay

Additional insureds and applications.  That’s our main theme this month.

Additional insured disputes can sometimes get complicated.  How much coverage the additional insured gets is often a hotly contested issue, especially when the named insured has coverage above the minimum limits it promised to get for the additional insured.  We see different outcomes on this

Courts were in full swing deciding insurance coverage issues over the past month or so.  Here are a few that caught our attention.

The Louisiana Supreme Court became the latest state supreme court to find no coverage for pandemic-related business interruption losses because such claims do not involve “direct physical loss.”  This case was closely

We bring you our March Insurance Update.

As college basketball programs embark on the road to the final four, we select our top four insurance cases from the past month.

In a dispute over the priority of coverage, the New Jersey Supreme Court weighs in on whether a city’s membership in a joint insurance fund

Here are some of the leading insurance cases from the past month.

The Sixth Circuit is the latest appellate court to address whether insurers must defend drug companies in local government opioid suits.  Joining the Ohio and Delaware Supreme Courts, the Sixth Circuit found that because the suits do not seek “damages because of bodily

It was a busy end to the year, as courts handed down several key insurance decisions before ringing in 2023.

The Ohio Supreme Court considered the contours of “direct physical loss or damage” in two separate decisions – one for pandemic-related business interruption losses, the other for losses from a ransomware attack.  In both cases,

We roll out our December Insurance Update just in time for the holidays.

Here’s what’s inside:

• The California Supreme Court discusses rules of policy construction in the context of a TCPA claim against Yahoo.
• A Minnesota federal judge considers data breach coverage for wire transfers to a fraudulent account.
• A Massachusetts federal court weighs

Our November Insurance Update covers several topics.

We’ve seen cases on whether contractors who repair homes can recover directly from insurers through assignments.  The Nebraska Supreme Court now considers whether a policyholder can assign to a non-policyholder a cause of action for first-party bad faith.

The Delaware Supreme Court is the latest

Kidnapping, treasure hunts, insurgents shooting down airplanes  — sounds like the Fall TV lineup.  But no, it’s our October Insurance Update.

And in honor of the month’s most treasured sporting event, the Fall Classic, we roll out a lineup of nine sluggers that will bring you up to date on what’s happened in the world

Some important insurance decisions were handed down over the past month.

We begin in Ohio, where public nuisance claims by state and local governments over opioids and lead paint were on full display.  In Acuity, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the opioid suits were not brought “because of bodily injury.”  A week earlier, the

When defendants are sued in state court, one of the first things defense attorneys will usually consider is whether the case is removable, and if so, whether it should be removed.

A recent practice, spurred by case law, has allowed defendants in some jurisdictions to remove to federal court. This is particularly a concern in

A few years back, we discussed the Montana Supreme Court’s Parker decision, which interpreted an earth movement exclusion in a first-party claim under a homeowner’s policy.  There, a boulder dislodged from a hillside and damaged the insured’s house.  The issue was whether a tumbling boulder should be considered earth movement.  The court said yes.  Now,

Our July Insurance Update is here.  This is what we discuss.

“Hoosier” daddy?  When a Little Daddy’s bouncer chased a drunk patron from Big Daddy’s parking lot, who knew it would lead to the Indiana Supreme Court adopting the efficient and predominant cause theory, no matter whose Daddy the bouncer was working for.

Oklahoma has

Coverage disputes often center on whether the policy language is clear.  Under the rules of contract construction, unambiguous language in an insurance policy must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.  Sometimes, policyholders try to create an ambiguity despite language that seems clear on its face, or suggest another reason why the language should not

You’ll find some notable decisions in our May Insurance Update.

Appeals over pandemic-related business interruption losses have made their way up to state high courts.  And so far, these courts have continued the trend favoring insurers.

The Texas Supreme Court addresses an issue of first impression: What duty of care does an insurer owe to

Cases in our April Insurance Update address several questions:

• Are costs incurred to comply with a subpoena covered?
• What must an insured show to rebut the presumption of prejudice in a late notice situation?
• What are related claims under claims-made policies?
• How does a retroactive date limitation apply?
• Is there a “loss of use”

Texas practitioners can add a new term to their legal vocabulary:  “the Monroe exception.”  The Texas Supreme Court has finally weighed in on whether to create an exception to the eight corners rule when determining if an insurer has a duty to defend.  Crafting a rule similar to what the Fifth Circuit proposed years earlier,

On February 25, 2022, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law amendments that relieve some of the most stringent insurance disclosure obligations for defendants under the December 2021 Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (CIDA).

CIDA, signed into law on December 31, 2021, significantly expanded the scope of defendant’s insurance disclosure obligations under CPLR 3101(f). CIDA

Causation, an issue courts often wrestle with when deciding insurance coverage issues, lands the starring role in our February Insurance Update.

• A county experienced higher costs due to the opioid crisis.  Does its complaint against drug stores allege damages because of bodily injury?
• A company sells a knock-off trailer with its logo on the

Cases discussed in our January Insurance Update answer these questions:

• A commercial crime policy covers property that the insured “holds for others.”  In the context of a phishing scheme, does “hold” mean the insured must possess the diverted funds or simply have some control over them?
• Federal and state agencies order a manufacturer to

This article was published as an Expert Analysis in Law360.

Many states have statutes or public policy that prohibits insurers from indemnifying policyholders for claims caused by their own willful acts. This is typical in the context of criminal acts or punitive damages, which many jurisdictions consider uninsurable. Likewise, statutory consumer protection claims are often uninsurable.

Our December Insurance Update features four cases.

The Minnesota Supreme Court decides if a resident-relative exclusion violates public policy.

A Texas appellate court considers, for a second time, if damage from illegal dumping was caused by an “occurrence.”

A Massachusetts appellate court determines whether an uninsured premises exclusion applies where the claim dates back to

We bring you our November Insurance Update.

Here’s what happened over the past month.

Insurers scored a hat trick before the Ninth Circuit, as the court found no coverage for pandemic-related business interruption losses in three separate cases.  The cases addressed the “direct physical loss” language, the virus exclusion, causation, and civil authority coverage.

The

Here’s our October Insurance Update.

The Sixth Circuit had insurance on its mind this past month.  Three of the decisions we discuss in our update are from that court.

First, the Sixth Circuit joins the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits in finding that pandemic-based business interruption losses did not amount to a “direct physical loss of

The cyber insurance market landscape continues to change, as insurers grapple with the growing threats hackers pose to policyholders. But less discussed are insurers’ internal cyber security practices. Insurers possess extensive personal information about policyholders, making insurers attractive targets for hackers.

In October 2017, responding to these concerns, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the

September.  Synonymous with back to school, the end of summer, and the start of the NFL season.  And while the Cowboys and Bucs kicked off the season this year, another epic battle was brewing out west in the corridors of the Ninth Circuit.

The public policy in most states is to enforce arbitration agreements in

Here is what you will find in our August Insurance Update:

• Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Criminal Proceeding Over Submission of Fraudulent Coal-Dust Samples, Sixth Circuit Affirms
• Fifth Circuit Finds Insurer Has Duty to Defend Insured for a Data Breach Litigation Under Policy’s Personal and Advertising Coverage
• Warranty Exclusion Bars D&O Liability Coverage for

A recent federal appeals court case applying Utah law goes to the heart of the conflict that arises between a policyholder and insurer when an insurer defends a policyholder under a reservation of rights and receives a settlement offer. The case is Owners Ins. Co. v. Dockstader, No. 19-4156 (10th Cir. June 29, 2021).

The

Appellate courts have been busy the last few weeks deciding a wide swath of insurance issues.

The Eighth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to weigh in on pandemic-related business interruption claims.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court discusses obligations owed to “innocent insureds,” while a California appellate court addresses the liability of a life insurer

Insurance coverage litigation often centers on the interpretation of specific terms and phrases in an insurance policy.

In our June Insurance Update:

• The Illinois Supreme Court decides whether disclosure of biometric identifiers to a single party is a “publication” and whether a BIPA claim involves a “right of privacy”
• A federal court in Kentucky

We bring you our May Insurance Update.

In this month’s update:

• The Minnesota Supreme Court considers an issue of first impression over the reasonableness of settlement agreements that fail to allocate between covered and uncovered claims
• The Seventh Circuit decides whether a policy’s TCPA exclusion bars coverage for common law claims arising out of

We bring you our April insurance update.

In this month’s update, state high courts consider reimbursement of defense costs, reimbursement of medical marijuana costs, and reimbursement of ransomware payments.

Federal courts determine whether a debt collector is entitled to a defense in a suit over its aggressive recovery tactics and whether a manufacturer is out

In our March Insurance Update, we discuss four state supreme court cases and four cybercrime cases.

The state high courts address:

• From whose perspective should a consent-to-settle provision be judged?
• What standard applies when construing an intentional injury exclusion?
• Does prior knowledge by one employee of an insured void claims-made coverage for all employees?

Our February insurance update discusses several issues involving first-party and third-party insurance claims.

• The Florida Supreme Court answers a certified question about the type of damages available to first-party litigants in breach of insurance contract cases.
• The Tenth Circuit considers the breadth of an earth movement exclusion and whether damage caused by a rolling

Courts ended 2020 with a flurry of insurance decisions.  Our January 2021 Update highlights some of these decisions, including several by state supreme courts.

We begin with a new twist on pandemic-related claims.  Within two days of each other, federal district court judges found, on the one hand, that Covid-19 business interruption losses were not

Here is what we cover in our December Insurance Update.

• In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court construes a mechanical device exclusion in an auto policy.
• A New Jersey federal judge considers whether an insured is covered under its E&O policy for an email spoofing scheme.
• Federal courts in California and

Our November Insurance Update touches upon some novel issues.

• Is an appraisal action – a proceeding to determine fair stock value on the date of merger – a Securities Claim for purposes of a D&O policy?
• Must a workers’ compensation carrier pay for medical marijuana costs?
• Does a pollution exclusion bar a landlord’s costs

• Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Centralizes Some COVID-19 Related Insurance Cases
• Ninth Circuit Rejects Excess Insurer’s “Improper Erosion” Theory
• Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Landfill Operator in Criminal Proceeding Stemming from Pollution Incidents, Fifth Circuit Holds
• Repeated Fuel Thefts by Truck Drivers Who Exploited Programming

Greg Mann was published in The CLM, “Malicious Prosecution Claims: Trend or Anomaly?”

The article discusses recent decisions that have created a new wrinkle in the insurance coverage debate.

Click here to read the article.

The duty to defend takes center stage in this month’s Insurance Update, and particularly, when extrinsic evidence may be considered in assessing that duty.

As it’s back to school time (whether virtually or in person), we thought we’d begin with a short quiz.

Which of the following circumstances gives rise to an insurer’s duty to

We bring you our July Insurance Update.

Perhaps the biggest news this month comes out of Michigan.

At a Zoom hearing on July 1, a Michigan Circuit Court judge became the first to hand down a decision on whether business interruption losses caused by COVID-19 are covered.  In Gavrilides Mgmt. Co. v. Michigan Ins. Co.,

“Intent” is the main theme of our June Insurance Update.

Policyholders will often point to allegations of negligence in attempting to secure coverage for claims involving the policyholder’s intentional conduct.  But it’s the facts, not the labels, that determine coverage.  And we discuss several decisions in our update emphasizing this point.  Whether in the context

We bring you our May Insurance Update.

We begin with three state high court decisions.

Last month, we discussed the Texas Supreme Court’s reaffirmance of the eight corners rule.  This month, the Texas Supreme Court carves out an exception to that rule.

Presented with a certified question involving the significance of “those sums” language on

Our April 2020 Insurance Update can be found here.

We begin with a recap of some of the COVID-19 business interruption claims filed against insurers. For more on COVID-19, please be sure to visit our Coronavirus Resource Center. Here are some of the insurance articles you will find there.

Proposed COVID-19 Bills Targeting Insurers: Do They Pass

First and foremost, we hope everyone is staying safe and healthy.

As you probably have noticed, Rivkin Radler has issued a series of bulletins over the past several days to help our clients navigate through this difficult time.

In addition to these bulletins, we will also continue to provide our monthly newsletters.  Here is what

Courts have been busy deciding insurance disputes.  As a result, our February Insurance Update is quite robust.

Here are the headlines from this month’s update:

Whether Intentional Assault Is an “Accident” Depends on Insured’s Viewpoint, Delaware Supreme Court Rules

• Illinois Supreme Court Applies Auto Policy’s “Unambiguous” Anti-stacking Clause
• Eighth Circuit Rejects Coverage for “Dome-Outs”

Our January Insurance Update is packed with cases.

We begin with state high court decisions addressing: (1) water and weather exclusions; (2) the validity of consent-to-settle provisions; and (3) whether an insurer breaches its duty to its insured by settling for policy limits without obtaining a liability release for the insured.

We then move on

Readers of our monthly insurance newsletter may be familiar with the Sanders case. That’s the case that addresses the proper trigger for a malicious prosecution action. Since a wrongful conviction can lead to steep damages, which policy is on the hook for those damages can be an important issue for insurers. Earlier in the year,

Our November Insurance Update is here.

We report on two cases featured in past updates that have now made their way up to state supreme courts.

In Vanderbilt, the Connecticut Supreme Court upholds an intermediate appellate court’s broad application of the “occupational disease” exclusion.  The court ruled that the exclusion is not limited only to

Our October Insurance Update is now available.

We discuss a case with an unfortunate, but familiar story.  A group of masked bandits, who notoriously carry out their misdeeds at night, ransacked a home looking for whatever valuables they could find.  Based on the trail of destruction left behind by these intruders, however, the homeowner could

Our September Insurance Update features several state and federal appellate court rulings.

We kick off this month’s issue with a decision that liability insurers will appreciate.  Courts differ as to whether coverage defenses based on lack of consent require an insurer to demonstrate prejudice.  The California Supreme Court explains that while prejudice may be required

Rob Tugander and Greg Mann published an article in the ABA’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee Summer 2019 Newsletter entitled, “Sanders v. Illinois Union: The Start of a New Trend on Malicious Prosecution Trigger, or Simply an Outlier.”

Click here to read the article.

Our August Insurance Update is now available.

In November 2017, we reported on a California federal district court opinion regarding the TV series Dig, a production based out of Jerusalem.  The show’s producers moved the series out of Jerusalem after Hamas had fired rockets into Israel.  The relocation was costly and the producers sought reimbursement

Our July Insurance Update is now available.  Strap in, because we’re headed on a cross-country journey.

We start out in New York where the Court of Appeals hands down an important ruling involving no-fault payments to non-physician controlled medical services corporations.

We then cross the bridge into New Jersey where that state’s Supreme Court considers

Our June insurance update is now available.  Packed with cases, our update touches upon a variety of issues.

We start off with two state high court decisions.  One deals with faulty work, the other considers whether a third-party claims administrator must answer to a claim for bad faith.

Sticking with bad faith, a Delaware court

Just like the abundance of rain we’ve had so far this spring, we’ve seen a recent downpour of coverage disputes. And just like the April showers that brought us May flowers, those coverage disputes have now blossomed into some interesting decisions. Our May Insurance Update discusses some of the best picks:

• The insured sells

Our April Insurance Update is here.  It addresses the following questions:

• A claimant offers to settle within policy limits, and then revokes the offer 41 days later.  Claimant goes to trial and gets an excess judgment.  Has the insurer breached its duty to settle?  The Georgia Supreme Court decides and clarifies its precedent on

We hope you had an enjoyable holiday and that your new year is off to a good start.

Here’s a quick look at the cases discussed in our January Insurance Update.

• Nevada Supreme Court Says Insurer That Has Not Acted in Bad Faith May Still Be Liable for Any Consequential Damages Caused By the

It was a bountiful month in terms of insurance decisions.  And as a result, our November Insurance Update is like a “Thanksgiving Day feast.” With a healthy serving of decisions from state high courts, intermediate appellate courts, and federal circuit courts, our update touches upon first-party issues, third-party issues, and a case insurance brokers will

Our October Insurance Update is packed with interesting cases.

We begin with a pair of cases addressing whether the insured’s liability was because of property damage. One case deals with future lost profits, the other concerns the failure to award a college degree.

In our next pair of cases, the homeowner’s insurer properly denied coverage. Did the

The insurance industry is becoming the next frontier for cybersecurity regulations. On May 8, 2018, South Carolina became the first state to adopt the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC’s) regulations specific to insurers and brokers, and the Rhode Island Legislature is currently considering a similar bill.

The NAIC, the leading national regulatory support organization, in

The Trump Administration created new uncertainty in a recent Court filing by declaring its intentions to rewrite an Obama-era regulation designed to dramatically expand the number of workers covered by federal overtime rules. Employers have been left in limbo since last November when a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the U.S.