Publications

When a policyholder feels their insurance claim has been mishandled or denied unfairly, pursuing recovery for the insurer’s bad faith is often front of mind. While many states recognize a common law and/or statutory cause of action for bad faith, the circumstances that constitute bad faith vary amongst jurisdictions.

The risks and losses associated with construction operations and property development push many insurance concepts to their limits. As a result, the construction industry has long been at the forefront of many complex insurance coverage issues and both drives but also depends on market standards to assess and adequately address risks.

Builder’s risk policies are manuscript and complex, and many contractors don’t fully understand the nuances of how and where the coverages they need come from in the policy. Time and again we see contractors taking risk contractually that builder’s risk insurance could have supported, but the policies fall short for reasons identified in the checklist. […]

Commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies providing limits on a “per-project” basis have become standard in the construction industry. General contractors and other upstream parties on large construction projects, as a rule, require downstream subcontractors to maintain CGL coverage with limits provided on a “per project” basis.

Federal and state courts tackled a myriad of interesting insurance-related issues this past year. The U.S. Supreme Court also surprisingly addressed coverage issues in 2024, in not one—but two—decisions. It is rare for the Supreme Court to confront insurance coverage issues which usually involve matters of state law. The highest court’s assessment of the nuances […]

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court has examined the applicability and use of the “illusory coverage doctrine” as a tool to interpret insurance policies. The Court also questioned whether the doctrine could invalidate unambiguous policy language. While it is undecided whether the doctrine exists, or can exist under California law, the decision seems […]

This year, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.”[1] In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer being sold for use in food packaging […]

On September 27, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Bill No. A10342 into law, authorizing the issuance of stand-alone business interruption insurance coverage. This bill was introduced and passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced many businesses to close temporarily as a result of government shutdown orders. Many affected businesses submitted insurance […]

The Florida Legislature recently passed House Bill 1021 which amended Florida Statute § 718.124. The July 1, 2024 amendment changes Florida’s statute of repose (“SOR”) trigger date for condominium projects. Now, the SOR trigger for existing condominium projects will be governed by Florida Statute §718.124, not Florida Statute § 95.11. Most critically, Florida Statute § […]

California’s complex saga of long-tail injury coverage under general liability policies took an interesting turn in the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement.¹  In Truck, the court made it clear that Insureds can access excess policy limits without first exhausting all triggered underlying primary coverage, provided the underlying limits for the same policy period have been exhausted.

A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall.

Trouble persists for policyholders seeking coverage for Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) litigation after the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Westfield Insurance Company v. UCAL Systems, Inc. d/b/a AMTEC PRECISION PRODUCTS, et al.¹   The District Court held that the Recording and Distribution of Material of Information of Law Exclusion applies to violations of BIPA and, thus, excludes coverage under Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies with similar exclusionary language.