Insurance Update

Our March Insurance Update is now available.

We begin with three state supreme court decisions answering these questions:

• A year before an insured bought its claims-made policy it received an attorney’s letter threatening mass tort litigation. The first suits were filed when the claims-made policy was in effect. Is the claims-made policy triggered? The Delaware Supreme Court decides if the letter stated a “claim for damages.”
• A patron trips and falls in an auto shop after bringing her car in for an oil change. Is she entitled to PIP benefits under Michigan’s no-fault law?
• An insured settles a claim for $220 million, payable exclusively from insurance recoveries. Is the insurer on the hook for the settlement? The Texas Supreme Court considers whether the insured had a meaningful incentive to limit the damages.

We also discuss three federal court decisions.

• Did the insured blow coverage when it notified the insurer’s underwriters and not its claim department? The Ninth Circuit discusses why notice provisions in claims-made-and-reported policy are strictly enforced.
• Does the catch-all exclusion for statutes regulating privacy violations apply to BIPA claims? An Illinois federal district court weighs in.
• An insured is accused of stealing a competitor’s trade secrets and confidential information. Is deposition testimony from the competitor’s president enough to bring the claim within the personal and advertising injury coverage? A California federal district court says “no.”

We hope that you find these cases interesting and informative.

Robert Tugander and Greg Mann