General Liability

Expert Analysis

• Insurance Implications Of Texas '8 Corners' Rulings

  

  Two recent Texas Supreme Court opinions resolve a long-pending question by reaffirming the so-called eight-corners rule as the primary means for determining an insurer's duty to defend, which should provide greater consistency between future state and federal decisions, says Susan Kidwell at Locke Lord.

• Why I'll Miss Arguing Before Justice Breyer

  

  Carter Phillips at Sidley shares some of his fondest memories of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer both inside and out of the courtroom, and explains why he thinks the justice’s multipronged questions during U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments were everything an advocate could ask for.

• Defense Counsel Must Alter Tactics To Fight Outsize Verdicts

  

  If defense counsel continue to use the same strategies they’ve always relied on without recognizing plaintiffs attorneys’ new playbook, so-called nuclear verdicts, such as the recent $730 million jury verdict in a wrongful death case in Texas, will continue to proliferate, says Robert Tyson at Tyson & Mendes.

• Policyholder Wins Push Boundaries Of Insurer Duty To Defend

  

  A recent string of federal and state appellate court decisions, expanding insurers' broad duty of defense to cover inferences, implications and reasonable interpretations raised by the underlying suit, should encourage policyholders seeking coverage, says Tae Andrews at Miller Friel.

• Examining Event Cancellation Coverage As COVID Lingers

  

  Recent pandemic-related postponements from the NBA, NFL and Grammys, coupled with COVID-19 being excluded from new event cancellation policies, highlight the need for event organizers to explore cancellation risks and how specialty coverage can serve as a tool for mitigation, say Jorge Aviles and Andrea DeField at Hunton.

• Using Insurance Coverage To Fund Early Settlement

  

  A recent settlement between health care company Vision Path and the Federal Trade Commission shows that settling early is a prudent consideration to avoid defense costs and preserve the bulk of the insurer budget for a settlement or judgment, say Jason Callen and Beau Creson at K&L Gates.

• Fla.'s New Appeal Rule Will Cause More Harm Than It Cures

  

  Florida's new procedural rule, permitting interlocutory appeals of orders that allow complaint amendment to add punitive damages, champions an unnecessary and often overly broad solution at the expense of the timely administration of justice, say Hugh Lumpkin and Wesley Butensky at Reed Smith.

• Federal Courts Are Right Venue For COVID Insurance Cases

  

  Two recent Law360 guest articles positing that state, not federal, courts should be deciding COVID-19 insurance coverage disputes incorrectly assume that these cases contain novel insurance law issues, say attorneys at Dentons.

• What Pa. Procedure Rule Change Means For 'Snap Removals'

  

  In light of Pennsylvania's recent civil procedure rule amendment significantly decreasing defendants' time to remove cases from state to federal court, Shari Milewski and Donald Kinsley at Maron Marvel offer some practical tips for maintaining snap removal as a viable defense tool.

• How NJ Bad Faith Auto Insurance Bill Compares To Pa.'s

  

  The recently enacted New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act, is in some ways narrower and in other ways broader than Pennsylvania's notoriously strict bad faith statute and leaves open many fundamental questions, which took Pennsylvania decades of litigation to resolve, say Kristin Jones and Brian Callaway at Troutman Pepper.

• Del. High Court Gets It Right With Opioid Nuisance Ruling

  

  In ACE v. Rite Aid, the Delaware Supreme Court has issued a groundbreaking insurance ruling that helps define the fundamental bargain at the heart of commercial insurance coverage and demonstrates why such coverage does not extend to public nuisance claims, says Adam Fleischer at BatesCarey.

• Flawed NY Insurance Law Needs Amendments

  

  The New York Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, recently signed by the governor, imposes a multitude of problematic disclosure obligations on defendant-insureds, which the Legislature should — and likely will — seriously consider modifying or eliminating, says Richard Mason at MasonADR.

• Justices May Hesitate To Review Calif. Fraud Coverage Case

  

  In Adir International v. Starr Indemnity, the policyholders are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review their challenge of a California law prohibiting insurers from defending insureds in certain consumer protection claims, but the court may not be ready to decide the issue at this time, says Greg Mann at Rivkin Radler.