Navigation

SDV Blog


Washington Policyholders Can Sue Insurance Adjusters Personally for Bad Faith Claims HandlingAug 14, 2018

Earlier this year, a Washington appellate court in Keodalah v. Allstate, 413 P.3d 1059 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018) held that an Allstate insurance adjuster handling an under-uninsured motor vehicle claim could be sued for bad faith claims handling.  The adjuster had low-balled the claim on the ground of 70% contributory negligence while knowing that her rationale was not true.  Although both the Seattle Police Department and Allstate’s investigations had found…

Read More »
Insured’s Failure to Timely Report Claim Eliminates CoverageAug 07, 2018

A recent federal court decision, applying California law to directors and officers liability policies, addressed two important issues: the importance of a policyholder’s strict compliance with a claims-made-and-reported policy’s notice provision, and the importance of accurate representations in an insurance application.  This decision is an important reminder to policyholders nationwide to ensure that they promptly report claims to their directors and officers insurers as soon as practicable, and to negotiate…

Read More »
The Outer Limits: Indiana Federal Court Refuses to Apply Interrelated Wrongful Acts Exclusion in D&O Coverage DisputeJul 31, 2018

A frequent and frustrating issue for policyholders under Directors & Officers (“D&O”) insurance is whether exclusions bar coverage due to prior litigation or other related allegations made against the insured in the past. In the recent decision of Emmis Communications Corp. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., an Indiana federal court found that it was not enough for the insurer to rely on mere factual allegations in common with a prior lawsuit…

Read More »
New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law ChallengesJul 24, 2018

This June, the New York Court of Appeals undertook the examination of the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract. This was a determinative issue for the case, as the applicable choice of law decided whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2 year statute of limitations or New York’s 6 year statute of limitations for breach of contract. The court found that,…

Read More »