General Liability

Expert Analysis

• Courts Shouldn't Consider Bodily Injury Claims In Opioid Suits

  

  Although public nuisance claims are driving opioid lawsuits, some recent court decisions are making a mistake by blurring the distinction between claims for individual injury and claims for governmental abatement funding, potentially manufacturing unintended insurance coverage and depleting insurance where it is actually needed, says Adam Fleischer at BatesCarey.

• Pandemic-Era Civil Jury Trials Require Constitutional Scrutiny

  

  Courts should carefully consider the constitutional rights of litigants before restarting civil jury trials amid the pandemic, because inadequate remote voir dire procedures and evidentiary handicaps due to health safety measures could amount to the denial of a fair trial by an impartial jury, say attorneys at Rumberger Kirk.

• Restaurant Virus Coverage Ruling Is An Outlier

  

  Though a Missouri federal court allowed a group of hair salons and restaurants to sue for COVID-19 business interruption losses, Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Insurance is easily distinguishable from other virus insurance coverage cases, contradicts existing case law and offers prospects for minimal recovery at best, say Keith Moskowitz and Erin Bradham at Dentons.

• Restaurant Virus Coverage Ruling Offers Insight For Insureds

  

  A Missouri federal court’s recent decision allowing hair salon and restaurant owners to pursue COVID-19 insurance coverage class action claims in Studio 417 v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co. reminds policyholders of the importance of arguing that COVID-19 is a physical substance, and that physical loss and physical damage must be defined separately, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Lessons From Asbestos Can Help Resolve Opioid Liabilities

  

  The effects of opioid litigation and settlements on pharmaceutical companies, insurers and others could be financially devastating, so affected entities should consider a practice used by companies with asbestos liabilities — a restructuring that separates those liabilities from ongoing operations, say consultants at Nathan Associates and Financial Asset Recovery Analytics.

• Ambiguity Favors Insureds In COVID-19 Coverage Disputes

  

  The rule that ambiguous insurance policy language should be construed against the carrier serves as a strong argument for policyholders in business interruption coverage litigation related to COVID-19, but the assertion has been invoked infrequently, say Jay Angoff and Joshua Karsh at Mehri & Skalet.

• Cos. Can Sell Future Asbestos Liabilities To Avoid Bankruptcy

  

  Bankruptcy has become an increasingly common solution for asbestos defendants, but the sale of contingent liabilities to a third party may provide a less complex and costly resolution of asbestos claims, say Milan Ceppi and Charles Oswald at Financial Asset Recovery Analytics.

• Mich. Ruling Isn't Last Word On COVID-19 Insurance Claims

  

  Although a Michigan state court dismissed the plaintiff's business interruption claim in Gavrilides Management v. Michigan Insurance, distinguishing features of the first dispositive decision in a COVID-19 coverage dispute will limit its impact on similar insurance litigation, say attorneys at Haynes and Boone.

• Ohio Ruling Adds To Insurance Uncertainty For Opioid Suits

  

  An Ohio appeals court's recent decision in Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical fails to address an insurer's duty to indemnify policyholders embattled in opioid litigation, only amplifying the uncertainty surrounding insurance coverage for opioid judgments and settlements, say attorneys at Nicolaides.

• How COVID-19 May Change Environmental M&A Due Diligence

  

  As M&A transactions face increased scrutiny in the pandemic-stressed economic landscape, environmental due diligence must address changing business imperatives and reflect evolving health and safety concerns, says Michael Bittner at Ramboll.

• Regulatory Estoppel Does Not Invalidate The Virus Exclusion

  

  Some policyholders seeking coverage for losses stemming from COVID-19 are arguing that virus exclusions are invalid due to regulatory estoppel, but this theory lacks substance and threatens to undermine formal clarifications of insurance policy intent, say Jonathan Schwartz and Colin Willmott at Goldberg Segalla.

• Leaving The Tort System Behind Via Corporate Risk Transfer

  

  With an increasingly litigious tort environment for corporate defendants, companies holding legacy liabilities would do well to investigate a capital markets solution for transferring their risks, say Mark Hemmann at FARA LLC and Peter Kelso at Roux Associates.

• History Can Inform Pandemic Biz Interruption Insurance Cases

  

  Historical catastrophes like the SARS epidemic, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and asbestos exposure provide helpful context for understanding the scale of current insurance litigation stemming from coronavirus-related business interruption, say Anne Gron and Georgi Tsvetkov at AlixPartners.