Insurance relies on uncertainty most of the time, so we price premiums based on events that the actuaries say are predictable en masse instead of unpredictable on an individual basis.
Recently my cell phone was hacked and data was wiped out. For a good few weeks I found myself in a panic. I hadn’t realized that I relied so much on my cell phone.
As a result of heightened regulatory scrutiny and changing enforcement priorities around the world, “cartel enforcement is a hot topic in boardroom,” according to a March 29, 2014 Economist magazine article entitled “Just One More Fix” (here).
D&;O – No Coverage Based Upon Consent and No Action Clauses in Policy After Insured Settles for Amount Greater Than Insurer’s Consent at Mediation
These two clauses do not often come into issue in coverage litigation, but a Georgia federal court had little trouble in enforcing them to preclude coverage for a $4.9M settlement and a claim for coverage under an excess D&O policy. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42575 (N.D. Ga. March 28, 2014).
One of the things that some attorneys overlook when settling a third party claim in an ERISA matter is the effect of the insurance company subrogation lien on the proceeds of the settlement.
From April to June, 2013, the state of Oklahoma was slammed with continuous severe weather, including multiple hails storms and horrific tornadoes.
In an interesting March 31, 2014 opinion (here), the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Puerto Rico law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that the D&O insurer for the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico must advance the bank’s former directors’ and officers’ expenses incurred in defending the FDIC’s suit against them in its capacity as the failed bank’s receiver.
As I have previously noted on this blog, a recurring insurance coverage issue is whether or not the costs incurred in responding to a regulatory or enforcement subpoena represent covered defense under a D&O insurance policy.
UK – the Perils of Follow Clauses: A Following Underwriter May Have to Follow a Settlement Even if the Settlement Agreement Purports Not to Bind Them
In this case the Commercial Court held that the Aigaion, one of the insurers of a ship – the St. Efrem, was required to follow a settlement entered into by a group of Lloyd’s syndicates who were the lead insurers of the vessel under a separate policy, based on a proper construction of the follow clause in Aigaion’s policy.
In part 4 my series on Proving and Winning a First Party Bad Faith Case I posted the Request for Admissions I recently served on the insurer’s attorney on a case in federal court in the Western District of Missouri.