D&O policies vary quite a bit from carrier to carrier, and language on “standard” exclusions can change from year to year. Accordingly, it is important to do a yearly review of your D&O policy to make sure your company has the right coverage. Three recent federal court decisions interpreting the “insured vs. insured” or “I v. I” exclusion remind us why examining specific policy language and understanding how it may apply to your business is so important. Continue Reading Trio of Recent Decisions on the I v. I Exclusion Should Remind Policyholders to Annually Review the Language in Their Policy to Avoid Losing Coverage
The Internet of Things gives rise to many risks and exposures that companies and their insurers were not thinking about as recently as a couple years ago, and probably aren’t fully cognizant of today.
The DDoS attack late last week on internet infrastructure company Dyn should act as a wake-up call. It shows how large and disruptive a cyber attack can become because of all the seemingly benign “things” connected to the internet. And it should cause companies to think about what their risks really are and whether their current risk management approaches address them.
Just one example from this latest attack – I’m reading that one or more of the manufacturers of the devices that were used as bots in this attack must recall a very large number of products because the passwords (which were easily cracked) cannot be changed by the user. The software that runs those products came ready installed on components bought from China, and it is this software that contains the vulnerability. Now that the passwords are known, the devices can no longer be considered secure. Maybe the manufacturers have product recall insurance or maybe they don’t. But they likely never thought they would have to conduct a product recall under these circumstances and whether such a recall might be covered under their current insurance program.
Protect your company by:
- Understanding your company’s IoT exposures.
- Using your company’s broker and coverage counsel to review all insurance policies with IoT exposures in mind and negotiate favorable policy terms.
- Revisiting the policies annually at renewal time because of quickly changing risks and policy terms.
In two previous posts, on April 19, 2016 and June 21, 2016, we reported on the EquityComp workers’ compensation program offered by Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries Applied Underwriters (Applied) and California Insurance Company (CIC). In the wake of the California Insurance Commissioner’s ruling in Shasta Linen that the EquityComp program is invalid and unenforceable, Applied Underwriters and the Commissioner on September 6, 2016 stipulated to a Cease and Desist Order. The Order can be found online here: Stipulated Consent Cease and Desist Order. Insureds under the program should read it carefully, as it presents them with a number of options. Continue Reading NEW UPDATE: Is Your Workers’ Compensation Program Unlawful?
The California wildfire season is well underway. Only a year ago, the Lake County fire destroyed hundreds of homes, thousands of acres and threatened vineyards and wineries. A recent report on climate change predicts that wildfires in the western U.S. and Canada will become more frequent and severe. And the Napa earthquake — only two years ago as of Aug. 24 — reminded us of another constant danger for California residents and businesses, particularly those with costly products like wine in tanks, barrels and bottles.
In the face of these risks, you can take steps now to be sure you have the right insurance and are prepared to get the most out of it if the worst happens.
Under a ruling this week from the California Insurance Commissioner, your company may be insured under an unenforceable workers’ compensation program. You may also be entitled to a refund of premiums paid to California Insurance Company (CIC) and Applied Underwriters (Applied), two Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries.
Our April 19, 2016 post discussed a decision from the California Department of Insurance finding that the EquityComp workers’ compensation program sold to Shasta Linen Supply by CIC and Applied is void as an unfiled collateral agreement. CIC appealed the administrative law judge’s decision finding the program void. Shasta appealed the denial of its claim for reimbursement of all sums in excess of actual claims paid. On June 20, 2016, the California Insurance Commissioner affirmed the ALJ’s decisions. Continue Reading UPDATE: Is Your Workers’ Compensation Program Unlawful?
A popular workers compensation insurance program offered by Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company (Applied Underwriters) and California Insurance Company may be in trouble. On January 21, 2016, the California Insurance Commissioner adopted an administrative decision finding that a critical piece of the program had not been submitted for approval and was therefore void. Any company now insured under this program should carefully monitor developments and consider alternative options for workers compensation insurance. Continue Reading Is Your Workers Compensation Program Unlawful?
Recently, I was asked to look at coverage for a case where the insurer had denied a duty to defend several years before. We concluded that the insurer should have been defending based on certain allegations in the complaint and asked it to reconsider. In the meantime, though, a successful partial summary judgment motion had dismissed the only covered claims. There is good law to suggest that the duty to defend should continue, but the client could have avoided an unnecessary fight had she retained coverage counsel at the outset. Continue Reading Leave It to the Policyholder Professionals – Do Not Try This at Home
As Bay Area residents prepared for thousands of football fans and media to descend on their region for the Super Bowl, one began to hear the sorts of rumblings that typically precede big events. Traffic will be terrible. Parking will be worse. Good luck getting a table at a restaurant. Oh, and good luck finding a place a sleep if you’re from out of town.
Former Mayor Willie Brown had advice for the naysayers: Rent your house on Airbnb! “Everyone is going to make a killing, including the private citizens who are smart enough to schedule a vacation paid for by Airbnb’ing their homes.”
No one insurance policy covers all liability risks. Risk managers expect to purchase several types or layers of insurance to cover different types of insurance liabilities, to provide sufficient limits for a catastrophe loss, or to provide coverage over multiple policy years. They may be surprised to learn however, that what they thought was a comprehensive and seamless program in fact contains glaring but avoidable gaps.
Consider the following:
- A social networking site for minors purchases an insurance policy which contains a “Technology, Media and Professional Services” component defining “Professional Services” as “providing advertising services for others, for a fee.” The same policy also includes a D&O component which excludes coverage for any claim “based upon, arising out of, attributable to, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving the rendering or failing to render professional services.” “Professional services” is not defined in the D&O component. Consumers complain that the site contains inappropriate content, and the State Attorney General sues the site for false advertising, alleging it misrepresented its efforts to protect minors from inappropriate content. The insurer denies coverage under the Technology, Media, Professional and Services component of the policy because the claim does not relate to the site’s “paid provision of advertising to others,” i.e., the claims do not allege covered “Professional Services” (the defined term). It also denies coverage under the D&O component on the grounds that the “professional services” (the undefined term) exclusion extends to all services involved in operating the website. Surprisingly, the liability does not fall under either policy because the coverage grant in the professional services coverage was not broad enough to pick up the services the court found were excluded under the D&O coverage.
We recently litigated and successfully settled an insurance coverage case that offers a model for managing a case thoughtfully. Too often, parties reflexively dive into litigation with its procedural hurdles and delays, unbounded discovery, and often unnecessary motion practice, without considering whether a more efficient but fair alternative exists. Our group regularly seeks to fashion a sensible case-specific dispute resolution process at the outset. These models also allow us to offer creative fee arrangements that build incentives to optimize the costs and recoveries for the client.
Our client company and its officers were named in an intellectual property lawsuit. The same insurer provided CGL and D&O policies. It denied coverage under the CGL. It initially agreed to defend under the D&O policy but later withdrew its defense over our objections.