Photo of David Smith

David Smith specializes in insurance coverage law, focusing on insurance claim preparation and presentation.   Mr. Smith also works on the negotiation of insurance claims and disputes on behalf of policyholders. Additionally, Mr. Smith works with the firm's insurance coverage attorneys in the areas of insurance industry policy drafting history, industry interpretation, and coverage intent. He also specializes in the identification and analysis of client's insurance policies that may provide coverage for a loss. This includes insurance archaeology - the piecing together of secondary evidence of lost policies to reconstruct historical records of clients' insurance programs.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gets It Right – Mostly

Hot on the heels of the Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in MTI, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 321423 (10th Cir. 2019) (about which I wrote earlier this month), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts also found that the phrase “that particular part” as used in exclusions j(5) and j(6) in the CGL policy must be applied narrowly. In All America Ins. Co. v. Lampasona Concrete Corp., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 79 (2019), the court held that damage caused to an underlying vapor barrier and a tile and carpet finish applied on top of the concrete floor slab poured by Lampasona was not excluded from coverage by the j(6) exclusion in the Lampasona’s policy. The court found that Lampasona did not install the vapor barrier or the tile/carpet, so they were not “that particular part” on which Lampasona was working.


Continue Reading

We do not often write about coverage opinions from jurisdictions as far away as Oklahoma; however, a recent case from the Federal Tenth Circuit looked at one of our favorite topics and came out with a much better reasoned opinion than recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit.

I’ve written before on the topic of the meaning of “that particular part” as the phrase is used in exclusions j(5) and j(6) of the Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy. The “j” exclusions exclude coverage for damage to certain property. Specifically, the j(5) and (6) exclusions state that the insurance does not apply to:

(5) That particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the “property damage” arises out of those operations; or

(6) That particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it.

The part of these exclusions that some courts consistently get wrong is the meaning of the phrase “that particular part.” In particular, in June 2017 I wrote about the way the Ninth Circuit (supposedly applying California law) has on several occasions ignored the insurance industry’s own explanation of the meaning of the phrase “that particular part” and applied the exclusion to the entire project a contractor was working on.
Continue Reading

In November, Tyler wrote about insurance issues raised by both the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020. California’s governor Jerry Brown signed two other cyber-related laws in September, which will also go into effect on January 1, 2020 – Assembly Bill 1906 and Senate Bill 327, which address security concerns relating to devices that are capable of connecting to the internet – the so-called Internet of Things or “IoT”. See California Civil Code 1798.91.04(a) et seq.

The bills largely mirror each other and, put very simply, require manufacturers of devices that are capable of being connected to the internet to equip them with “reasonable” security features that are both appropriate to the device and require a user to generate a new means of authentication before access is granted to the device for the first time. Technologists are debating whether the laws are good or bad, and if good, whether they go far enough. Regardless, the law will become effective and manufacturers of IoT devices will have to comply with them. The law does not provide for a private right of action; it permits the state’s Attorney General to enforce its provisions.

The new California law applies to all connected devices sold or offered for sale in California. Because California is such a large market, this likely means that all such devices sold in North America and Europe will comply with California’s regulations, and older, less secure devices will be diverted to countries with fewer regulations.


Continue Reading

image: Are you Covered?Insurance recovery partner Tyler Gerking and I have co-authored an article examining two recent cases from separate California state courts that we feel correctly interpret the phrase “that particular part” as it applies to certain CGL policy exclusions, and apply it in its intended narrow sense. The rulings in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety

Before worrying about an insurance claim, first ensure that you and your family, including pets and extended family, have their immediate needs met, particularly medical needs. When you are ready to begin the recovery process, we have outlined a few steps for you to take in working with your insurers to ensure that you receive the maximum benefits under any applicable policies.
Continue Reading

Are you Covered? note pinned to boardThis is part one of a two-part series looking at how court decisions in recent years have thwarted general contractors’ reasonable expectation of coverage under their general liability policies.

In early March, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in Archer Western Contractors v. National Union, No. 15-55648 (filed Mar. 2 2017). The opinion held that the phrase “that particular part” as used in the “Damage to Property” exclusions in a CGL policy must be interpreted broadly to encompass “the entire project on which a general contractor is performing operations.” This is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has issued an unpublished opinion interpreting “that particular part” to apply to the entirety of a project.

The Ninth Circuit in these cases ignored the plain meaning of words that the insurance industry itself has explained should be construed in the narrowest possible sense. Policyholders, particularly general contractors, should beware this worrisome trend in the courts, as it is creating the potential for a gap in ongoing operations coverage that was not meant to exist.
Continue Reading

shutterstock_109214660-Cyber-Attack-BlogThe 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

In the December post Systemic Cyber Risks And The Internet of Things, we wrote about the increasing risk of cyber attacks on infrastructure and consumer products, and related insurance issues. We noted in that post that, while there have been a few cyber attacks on the Internet of Things (IoT) reported over the past few years, the number of such attacks was certain to grow. It has. Since our December post, several new attacks and developments have been publicly disclosed. These attacks again remind us that companies should evaluate their risks and exposures relating to the IoT and carefully negotiate their insurance policy renewals or purchases.
Continue Reading

David Smith and I have recently been writing and speaking about cyber risks and cyber insurance for the wine industry. While many of the high-profile data security breaches in the news involve large public companies, all businesses that accept credit cards for payment and/or have personally identifiable information from employees or customers are at risk

On December 16, 2015, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV) issued draft regulations for the deployment (not just testing) of autonomous vehicles. When adopted, they may be the first such regulations in the country. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is moving ahead with testing of self-driving technologies in anticipation of setting safety standards. Meanwhile, Google and virtually every major car manufacturer has stepped on the innovation gas pedal to develop self-driving technologies. Will regulators be ready when the cars are? How will the regulation of autonomous vehicles impact the liability landscape and, in turn, how that liability will be insured?
Continue Reading