On December 31, 2021, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, a sweeping reform to the disclosure obligations formerly required under CPLR 3101(f). As enacted, the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act places restrictive new disclosure requirements on defendants and defense counsel litigating in New York. You can read our prior coverage of the act here. However, even as she was signing the bill into law, Gov. Hochul ... Keep Reading »
Claim Managers Take Note: New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Places New, Immediate, and Retroactive Disclosure Obligations Under CPLR 3101(f) on Defendants and Defense Counsel
On December 31, 2021, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, significantly increasing the disclosure requirements for defendants litigating in New York state court. The Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act amends CPLR 3101(f), which previously allowed plaintiffs in litigation to seek disclosure from defendants as to the existence and contents of any insurance agreement that may be used to satisfy a judgment. Under the ... Keep Reading »
California Federal Court Awards Insurer Reimbursement of Settlement Funds Paid on Insureds’ Behalf After Finding Insurer Has No Duty to Indemnify in Wrongful Death Suit Involving Wrecked Ferrari
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled in United Specialty Insurance Co. v. Bani Auto Group Inc. that United Specialty Insurance Co. did not have a duty to indemnify its insureds in connection with litigation brought by the widow of a man killed while driving a car rented to him by the insureds, based on certain exclusions contained in an auto dealer policy issued by United, and awarded reimbursement of settlement funds advanced by ... Keep Reading »
New York Federal Court Rejects Argument That SEC Investigation Constitutes a “Securities Claim” Under D&O Policies
Recent Delaware decisions reveal a trend of insureds seeking to expand the definition of “Securities Claims” in their D&O policies, and Delaware courts refusing to do so. You can read our discussion on those rulings here and here and here. In March, the Southern District of New York aligned with this line of Delaware decisions, ruling that an SEC investigation did not constitute a “Securities Claim,” and dismissing a lawsuit against insurers that sought recovery of ... Keep Reading »
Delaware Courts Secure Limited Scope of “Securities Claims” in D&O Policies
The federal district court in Delaware recently ruled in Calamos Asset Management Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America that stockholder suits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with a merger do not constitute a "securities claim" in the context of D&O policies. This decision is another in a string of recent cases that have refused to expand that definition. The Merger and Subsequent Shareholder Litigation In December 2016, ... Keep Reading »
Delaware Supreme Court Finds That Appraisal Proceedings Are Not a “Securities Claim,” Again Refusing To Broaden That Definition in the Context of D&O Policies
We previously discussed the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to broaden the definition of a "securities claim" in In re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals, and this issue continues to be ripe for dispute. The Delaware Supreme Court took another look at what constitutes a "securities claim" in In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, Nos. 413, 2019; 418, 2019 (Del Oct. 23, 2020), where it considered as a matter of national first impression the question of whether ... Keep Reading »
The No Corners Rule? New York Federal Court Holds No Duty to Defend Where There Is No Possible Legal or Factual Basis for Indemnification of Insured
Under New York law, an insurer's duty to defend ends if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured. This rule was recently applied by the Southern District of New York in Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Streb, Inc., No. 19 CIV. 366 (KPF), 2020 WL 5549316 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020). In Streb, the Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("PIIC") issued a ... Keep Reading »
Don’t Lead Me On: Georgia Court of Appeals Finds Insurance Company Did Not Mislead Insured and Therefore Did Not Waive Policy’s Suit Limitation Provision
Insurance policies often contain "limitation-of-action" or suit limitation provisions, which contractually reduce the statute of limitations for an insured to assert a claim against an insurer. Depending on the state, such provisions can be enforceable because, as a general matter, parties are free to contract on whatever terms they wish, so long as they do not violate a particular statute or public policy. However, there are certain circumstances under which an insurer ... Keep Reading »
A Case of Mass Listeria: Insurer’s Duty to Defend in New Jersey Contaminated Pizza Crusts Suit
Last week, in Conte’s Pasta Co. v. Republic Franklin Insurance Co., a New Jersey federal court ruled that Republic Franklin Insurance Co. was obligated to indemnify Conte’s Pasta for the costs incurred defending against a suit brought by one of its customers, Nature’s One, for damages related to listeria contamination in its gluten-free pizza crusts. Underlying Litigation In early 2017, Nature’s One contracted with Conte’s Pasta to manufacture gluten-free pizza ... Keep Reading »
Is Your “Securities Claim” Actually Covered Under Your D&O Policy? A Review of In Re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals
The question of what constitutes a "securities claim" in the context of public company D&O policies is often debated in insurance coverage disputes, and the answer to this question can have significant effects on the scope of what insurance companies would be forced to cover under these policies. In In re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed an earlier Superior Court ruling that, if upheld, would have considerably broadened that ... Keep Reading »