Insurance UpdateJune 19, 2019 | Robert Tugander | Greg E. Mann |
Our June insurance update is now available. Packed with cases, our update touches upon a variety of issues.
We start off with two state high court decisions. One deals with faulty work, the other considers whether a third-party claims administrator must answer to a claim for bad faith.
Sticking with bad faith, a Delaware court considers whether a D&O insurer acted properly when denying coverage for a shareholders’ suit.
A Maryland court finds it appropriate to allocate damages in a lead paint case on a pro rata basis, but runs into a practical concern — the start date for the allocation period. Should it begin before the claimant was born?
Insurance for cybercrimes is the new frontier. And as new cyber scams continue to surface, insurers are responding with new clauses clarifying the risks they are willing to cover. A Washington federal court interprets one such clause; an exclusion for fraudulent transfer requests.
And speaking of exclusions, one court considers whether an invasion of privacy exclusion bars coverage for a TCPA claim, while another considers whether a “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusions saves an insurer from contributing towards an asbestos claim.
We close our update with a trilogy of late notice cases. One under the reporting requirements of a pollution exclusion, one involving the insured’s liability for historic operations, and another arising out of the insured’s default.
There’s plenty to read. We hope you find this update informative.
- Robert Tugander
- Greg E. Mann