A recent case we handled highlights the importance of reading a complaint’s allegations very carefully. Competitors in high-stakes litigation may file complaints and cross-complaints against each other alleging a variety of intellectual property violations and business torts. These may include patent or copyright infringement, attempted monopolization, unfair competition and interference with contractual relations. On their face, none of these are likely to be covered by commercial insurance. But competitors often cannot resist alleging every conceivable harm, and this may include asserting that the defendant (or cross-defendant) has disparaged the plaintiff to customers and the public. Most general liability policies cover disparagement as part of the “personal and advertising injury” coverage. In California, the broad duty to defend results in valuable coverage for attorneys’ fees and costs in what would otherwise be uncovered litigation. Continue Reading Disparagement Allegations May Trigger Valuable Coverage
We first began studying the implications of self-driving cars, or “AVs”, two years ago. At that time, observers predicted that fully autonomous “Level 5” cars (i.e., a car with no steering wheel) would not appear in significant numbers until 2030. In 2015, Lux Research observed:
Fully autonomous driving may happen by 2030, but only in highly restricted environments and likely only at low speeds.
That prediction now appears to be well off-target. The world may not be ready for the pace at which AVs come to dominate city streets. Continue Reading The Future Has Arrived for Self-Driving Cars
Are communications among a client, a third party, such as an insurance broker, and the client’s attorney privileged? The answer is yes, if the communications are confidential and reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Behunin v. Superior Court, 2017 WL 977095 (2d Dist. March 14, 2017), decided last week, addresses this question. Continue Reading Communications With Your Broker May Be Privileged
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?
I wrote an article for Risk Management discussing the Federal Aviation Administration’s long-awaited regulations for commercial drones weighing 55 pounds or less and the insurance coverage available to address drone risks. Insurance is widely available, but careful attention should be paid to differences in policy language. Also, expect insurers to incorporate features of the new regulations in their underwriting approach.
You can read the full article on Risk Management‘s website: FAA Clears Drones for Takeoff
The crash of a vehicle operating in semi-autonomous or fully autonomous mode presents a headline-grabbing opportunity to question the technology and the pace at which it is being introduced. Every accident resulting in injury or death is a tragedy. In the case of new technology that offers the possibility of dramatically reducing the total number of injuries and deaths, it will be important to look at any individual crash in the context of the overall promise of the technology. For example, it will be important to know how many miles of autonomous driving took place before the first crash occurred and compare that to ordinary cars, where the national average is one fatality every 94 million miles, and the worldwide average is a fatality every 60 million miles.
For our purposes, a crash also presents a scenario for how liability and insurance issues may play out as these cars and trucks start appearing on the road in greater numbers. We’ll walk through what won’t change, and the few things that might. Continue Reading Autonomous Vehicles: A Case Study of Liability and Insurance
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?
Employers continue to face a wave of lawsuits alleging violations of various “wage and hour” statutes (overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, etc.). Employment liability insurers have uniformly denied coverage for these claims and have tightened applicable exclusions. Some insurers now offer wage and hour coverage, but these policies and endorsements usually provide only very restricted defense cost coverage. A new source of coverage now exists, courtesy not of insurers but of revisions to the California Labor Code.
New Labor Code §558.1, effective January 1, 2016, appears to create individual liability for violation of California’s wage and hour statutes. Continue Reading New Law May Create Coverage for Wage and Hour Claims