PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for John C. Pitblado

About John C. Pitblado

John Pitblado is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Hartford, Connecticut. Connect with John on LinkedIn.

Failure to Procure Cyber Insurance Could Haunt Your Company

October 29, 2018 by Gregory Gidus and John C. Pitblado

A federal court in Florida recently adopted the now well-developed consensus that data breach losses are not covered under standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. As the Department of Homeland Security’s officially designated 15th annual Cybersecurity Awareness Month comes to a close, the case stands as yet another stark warning that companies of all sizes – any company that uses, collects, stores or handles confidential personal information such as credit ... Keep Reading »

Sixth Circuit Weighs in on Coverage for Marijuana-related Property Loss

October 5, 2018 by John C. Pitblado

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a colorful opinion in a property insurance coverage dispute affirming a denial of coverage for loss arising out of an illicit marijuana growing operation in Michigan. The case is captioned K.V.G. Properties Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 17-2421 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018). The insured was the lessor of commercial properties, including a property leased to certain tenants who, unbeknownst to the lessor, built a large-scale ... Keep Reading »

New Opinions From Second and Sixth Circuit Courts Rock Phishing Loss Coverage Landscape

July 16, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney, John C. Pitblado and Amanda Proctor

Fireworks over New York City

On July 6, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set off some fireworks in the insurance coverage litigation field when it found coverage for a “social engineering”/phishing scheme loss, bucking the trend among its sister courts. The appellate court affirmed a Southern District of New York decision that had been a relative outlier, finding coverage under a crime/fidelity policy for a scheme where fraudsters used spoof emails to trick company employees into changing wiring ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Affirms No Coverage Under Computer Fraud Provision of Insurance Policy

May 11, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney and John C. Pitblado

Debit Cards

On May 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in InComm Holdings, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that Great American’s computer fraud coverage did not apply to holders of prepaid debit cards who exploited a coding error in the insured’s computer system and fraudulently increased the balances on the cards which caused InComm to incur ... Keep Reading »

Fidelity Coverage for Social Engineering Scams: The Ninth Circuit Upholds an Authorized Use Exclusion

April 20, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney and John C. Pitblado

Businessman's hand controlling a worker marionette

Losses from social engineering schemes continue to grow exponentially. According to FBI data published in early 2017, losses from these schemes totaled over $3 billion between 2013, when the FBI started tracking data, and the end of 2016. One recent estimate suggests projected growth to over $9 billion in 2018 alone. The problem is not going away; it's getting much, much worse. Under these schemes, perpetrators trick company employees into believing that they have ... Keep Reading »

First Circuit: The Best Offense Is a Good Defense?

December 13, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Steel Curtain Defense

In Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. VisionAid, Inc., No. 15-1351P2-01A (1st Cir. Nov. 15, 2017), the First Circuit Court of Appeals ended long-running insurance coverage litigation arising from policyholder VisionAid, Inc.’s termination of a former vice president, Gary Sullivan. Sullivan sued his former employer, alleging age discrimination. VisionAid tendered the claim to its employment practices liability insurer, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company. Mount Vernon ... Keep Reading »

War: What is it good for? Business Loss and the War Exclusion

November 17, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

In summer 2014, Israel and Hamas were engaged in armed conflict. Thousands of residents of Gaza and Israel were killed or injured, and much of Gaza City was destroyed by rocket fire and other heavy weapons. The Israeli Defense Force dispatched tens of thousands of ground troops to the area, and international attention from the United Nations and other interested parties, including the United States, focused on the “conflict.” But was it a “war?” The United States has ... Keep Reading »

Texas Appeals Court affirms Class Certification in Case Alleging Roofer Violated Insurance Code

August 28, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

House Flooding

Texas homeowners Joe and Stacci Key sued their roofer, Lon Smith Roofing Contractors (“LSRC”), alleging LSRC violated the Texas Insurance Code by acting as an unlicensed public insurance adjustor. The trial court granted class certification, and LSRC sought interlocutory review. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed in a case captioned Lon Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Key, No. 02-15-00328-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017). When it Hails… The Keys retained LSRC to make ... Keep Reading »

District Courts Buck Trend on Fidelity Coverage for Social Engineering and Business Email Compromise Schemes

August 4, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Cyber Crime Hacker

The FBI continues to warn that losses are on the rise from business email compromise (BEC) or “social engineering” schemes, which the Bureau describes as: Carried out by transnational criminal organizations that employ lawyers, linguists, hackers, and social engineers, BEC can take a variety of forms. But in just about every case, the scammers target employees with access to company finances and trick them into making wire transfers to bank accounts thought to belong to ... Keep Reading »

Connecticut Appellate Court Addresses Trigger, Allocation, Exclusions, and Other Issues of First Impression in Coverage Litigation Over Long-Latency Asbestos Injury Cases

June 2, 2017 by John C. Pitblado

Connecticut’s intermediate appellate court addressed a number of novel issues in a wide-ranging opinion regarding primary and excess insurers’ respective duties to defend and indemnify their common insured for long-tail asbestos-related injury claims. The opinion was rendered unanimously and authored collectively by the three-judge panel of Robert Beach, Douglas Lavine, and Stuart Bear (ret.). The case, styled R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing