Specialty Lines

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.

• 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.

• What Cos. Should Know About D&O Policy Landscape In 2022

  

  Directors and officers liability insurance issues are likely to evolve this year against the backdrop of a new COVID-19 variant, rising inflation and other developments, particularly with regard to antitrust-related enforcement, special purpose acquisition companies, pandemic-related liability and cybersecurity, says Christina Lincoln at Robins Kaplan.

• Securing Coverage For Investors' Political Risk Claims In 2022

  

  While recent world events highlight the need for foreign investors to protect themselves from losses related to political instability, businesses should be aware of the ways political risk insurers may seek to deny or delay payment of claims, say attorneys at McGuireWoods.

• 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.

• Reach Of Ohio Ransomware Ruling Limited To Policy At Hand

  

  While an Ohio appellate court's recent decision allowing the insured's ransomware attack claim to proceed in EMOI Services v. Owners Insurance may seem significant for insurance jurisprudence, it should not have implications beyond policies specifically insuring damage to software, says Jane Warring at Zelle.

• D&O Insurance Lessons From The Rise And Fall Of Theranos

  

  After the fall of Theranos and the recent criminal conviction of founder Elizabeth Holmes, startups seeking to protect their directors and officers from exposure to personal liability should consider how eye-popping company valuations and other changes to the startup landscape will affect their D&O policies, say Lilit Asadourian and Kathryn Bayes at Reed Smith.

• 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.

• Beyond Insurance: Mitigating Cyber Risk In 2022

  

  As insurers move to higher premiums and less coverage for cyberattacks, companies should consider restructuring their risk mitigation strategies for the upcoming year to lessen their reliance on insurance support for data security issues, say professionals at StoneTurn.

• 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.

• NY Case Shows Insurance Possibility For SEC Disgorgements

  

  Directors and officers insurers almost invariably deny coverage for payments described as disgorgements in settlement agreements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the recent decision of New York's highest court in J.P. Morgan v. Vigilant demonstrates how policyholders can negotiate an insurable settlement with the SEC, say Stephen Weisbrod and Tamra Ferguson at Weisbrod Matteis.

• JP Morgan Ruling May Have Broad Insurance Implications

  

  The New York Court of Appeals' recent decision in J.P. Morgan Securities v. Vigilant Insurance — that settlement funds paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did not constitute a penalty for insurance purposes — could have far-reaching application in other types of insurance litigation where plaintiffs could be characterized as seeking equitable relief, say Robert Shulman and Cristen Rose at Paley Rothman.