General Liability

Expert Analysis

• What Wis. High Court Ruling Means For Coverage Analysis

  

  Overturning insurance law precedent in 5 Walworth v. Engerman Contracting, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently rejected the use of the economic loss doctrine and integrated systems analysis in commercial general liability cases, but a strongly worded concurrence could indicate that the court's opinion may have limited persuasive reach, say Laura Lin and Pierce MacConaghy at Simpson Thacher.

• Auto Insurers Should Reassess Calif. Diminished Value Claims

  

  Many California auto insurers currently pay third-party claims for diminished value damages after a vehicle has been in an accident; however, federal decisions interpreting California law suggest that insurers may not have to pay some of these claims, says Charles Danaher at Sheppard Mullin.

• In Ga., Promptness Is Key To Setting Aside Default Judgments

  

  The Georgia Court of Appeals' recent vacating of a lower court's decision to set aside a default judgment against Samsung Electronics America is a reminder of the processes and arguments provided by Georgia's statutes for challenging default judgments — including the importance of responding quickly, says Katy Robertson at Swift Currie.

• 1st Circ. Harvard Ruling Provides Primer On Policy Provisions

  

  In its recent finding of no coverage for Harvard due to the school's failure to give Zurich American Insurance timely notice of its claim, the First Circuit provides a good analysis of the distinctions between occurrence and claims-made policies, including the rationale for differences in notice provisions, says Andrew Paliotta at Cozen O'Connor.

• SEC's New Rules Likely Will Affect Cyber, D&O Insurance

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently adopted cybersecurity incident disclosure rules that could create new challenges that affect how public companies assess the risk of securities, corporate governance and cyber-related lawsuits, which may implicate novel insurance coverage issues, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Potential Marijuana Status Change Would Shift Industry Risks

  

  Cannabis companies and their insurers should pay close attention to how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' move toward marijuana reclassification plays out, and the potential for a shakeup in the landscape for cannabis regulation at the state and federal levels, says Ian Stewart at Wilson Elser.

• Key Provisions In Florida's New Insurer Accountability Act

  

  Florida's recent bipartisan Insurer Accountability Act introduces a range of new obligations for insurance companies and regulatory bodies to strengthen consumer protection, and other states may follow suit should it prove successful at ensuring a reliable insurance market, say Jan Larson and Benjamin Malings at Jenner & Block.

• Next Steps For Insurers After Ky. OKs Early 3rd-Party Claims

  

  While insurers in Kentucky may face more statutory bad faith claims after a recent state Supreme Court decision clarified that third parties may bring these torts even before determination of coverage is finalized, insurers can adopt a variety of approaches to reduce their exposure, says Jason Reichlyn at Dykema Gossett.

• Insurers, Prepare For Large Exposures From PFAS Claims

  

  With thousands of lawsuits concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances pending across the country, several large settlements already reached, and both regulators and the plaintiffs bar increasingly focusing on PFAS, it is becoming clear that these "forever chemicals" present major exposures to insurers and their policyholders, say Scott Seaman and Jennifer Arnold at Hinshaw.

• What To Know About Duty To Settle Insurance Claims In Texas

  

  Laura Grabouski of Holden Litigation examines the parameters of Texas insurers' duty to settle liability claims within the limits of the primary policy, as knowledge of the requirements — and the potential exposure from insureds, judgment creditors or excess creditors — can pay dividends in the era of nuclear verdicts.

• Ga. Mirror-Image Rule Makes Settlements Fraught For Insurers

  

  The Georgia Court of Appeals' recent decision in Pierce v. Banks shows how strictly Georgia courts will enforce the rule that an insurer's response to a settlement demand must be a mirror image of the demand — and is a reminder that parties must exercise caution when accepting such a demand, says Seth Friedman at Lewis Brisbois.

• Insurance Ruling Shows Notice Letters Need Close Review

  

  A Texas appeals court's recent disapproval of an insured’s presuit notice letter to Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance — which refused to quantify an alleged injury — should prompt courts to probe deeper when considering whether such a letter gives the insurer the information needed to resolve the claim or make a settlement offer, say Jennifer Martin and Timothy Delabar at Wilson Elser.

• 11th Circ. Ruling May Impede Insurers' Defense Cost Recoup

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent Continental Casualty v. Winder Laboratories ruling that insurers cannot obtain reimbursement of defense costs from their insureds where the policy itself does not require such reimbursement is likely to be cited as persuasive authority in Georgia and other states without clear precedent on the issue, say Christy Maple and Robert Whitney at Phelps Dunbar.