General Liability

Expert Analysis

• 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.

• Groundbreaking Nev. Law May Alter Insurance Landscape

  

  The Nevada Legislature recently passed a law prohibiting insurers from issuing liability policies with eroding limits provisions that has the potential to create massive shifts in the marketplace — and specifically in areas like professional liability, cyber, and directors and officers insurance, says Will Bennett at Saxe Doernberger.

• Insurance Insights From 5th Circ. Blue Bell Coverage Ruling

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling that denied Blue Bell insurance coverage for the defense costs incurred from a shareholder lawsuit underscores the importance of coordination of different coverages and policies across programs, and the potential perils of seeking recovery for losses under nontraditional policies, say Geoffrey Fehling and Casey Coffey at Hunton.

• The Legal Issues Flying Around The Evolving Drone Market

  

  As the number of drone registrations is expected to more than double over the next three years, the industry faces new risks and considerations related to privacy, Fourth Amendment, criminal, evidentiary, First Amendment, and insurance litigation, say attorneys at Covington.

• What The ESG Divide Means For Insurers And Beyond

  

  The debate around ESG is becoming increasingly polarized, with some states passing legislation that prohibits the use of ESG factors and others advancing affirmative legislation, highlighting the importance for insurers and other companies to understand this complex legal landscape, say Scott Seaman and Bessie Daschbach at Hinshaw.

• Consider Self-Help To Trigger Additional-Insured Status

  

  A New Jersey federal court recently affirmed that owners and contractors can use self-help by filing third-party claims for indemnification against subcontractors, triggering coverage from a subcontractor's insurance by asserting that an employee's injuries resulted from the subcontractor's fault or the employee's own negligence, say Allen Wolff and Ethan Middlebrooks at Anderson Kill.

• Why 7th Circ.'s BIPA Insurance Analysis Is Significant

  

  The Seventh Circuit's ruling in Citizens v. Wynndalco is the first appellate opinion on one of the three major exclusions raised by insurers faced with a duty to defend alleged violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act and could foreshadow future BIPA opinions favoring policyholders, say John Vishneski and Adrienne Kitchen at Reed Smith.

• What 6th Circ. Ruling May Portend For PFAS Coverage Cases

  

  The Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Admiral Insurance v. Fire-Dex, rejecting the insurer's attempt to avoid coverage, shows that federal courts may decline to resolve novel PFAS state-law issues, and that insurers may have less confidence than originally intimated in the applicability of the pollution exclusion to PFAS claims, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Insurance Considerations For State Biometric Privacy Claims

  

  As Connecticut and Colorado join the growing number of states that have enacted biometric data privacy acts auguring significant damages, in-house counsel thinking about insurance coverage for privacy liability should consider several key factors including clarity of exclusions, say Peter Halprin and Tae Andrews at Pasich.

• 5th Circ. Ruling Aids Insureds In Contractual Exclusion Rows

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent insurance decision in Windermere Oaks v. Allied World, in favor of coverage, provides policyholders with guidance on how to distinguish between contractual and noncontractual claims when insurers deploy broadly worded liability exclusions to deny coverage, say Max Louik and David Ledet at Reed Smith.