PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

A New Bad Faith Trend Emerges in COVID-19 Business Interruption Litigation

April 10, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

With governments across the world ordering the shutdown of restaurants, bars, and other “non-essential” businesses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, business interruption insurance claims are, not surprisingly, on the rise. While typical commercial property policies require “direct physical loss or damage” to property — a requirement that is unlikely satisfied by the shutdowns — policyholders are getting creative, alleging that the potential presence of the novel coronavirus ... Keep Reading »

Pennsylvania Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim, Even Though Insurer Timely Made Demanded Payments

April 8, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

Empty Pockets

There have been more developments in Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health System Inc., the case brought by Ironshore, as excess carrier, to seek reimbursement of amounts paid in an underlying medical malpractice settlement. While we previously reported that the court denied Conemaugh's (the insured's) motion to dismiss, the court has now also ruled that Conemaugh's counterclaims for bad faith can move forward, despite the fact that Conemaugh did not ... Keep Reading »

New York Federal Court Finds Insured’s Failure to Provide Notice of Subpoena Did Not Bar Coverage for Later Lawsuit

April 3, 2020 by Christina Gallo

Foreclosure Sign

Applying New York law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that because a subpoena duces tecum previously issued to the insured by a post-judgment creditor of a non-insured entity was not a "claim" against the insured, the subpoena and a later-filed lawsuit against the insured could not qualify as "related claims" deemed first made when the subpoena was issued. The court also held that the "warranty exclusion" in the application for the ... Keep Reading »

New York Among the Latest States to Propose Legislation That Would Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

April 1, 2020 by Christina Gallo and Charles W. Stotter

We previously described here proposed New Jersey legislation that would also compel coverage of business interruption claims based on COVID-19 losses. The New Jersey bill was voted out of the New Jersey Assembly’s Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee but continues to be the subject of negotiation among insurance industry representatives and the bill’s sponsors. Ohio, Massachusetts, and now New York have since followed New Jersey’s lead, introducing bills ... Keep Reading »

Business Interrupted: Policyholders Seek to Avoid the “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Requirement for Business Interruption Insurance in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic

March 27, 2020 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and Amanda Proctor

The COVID-19 pandemic has swept the world, altering every aspect of daily life — whether it be a morning trip to the gym, a day at the office, a dinner at the Italian restaurant across the street, or a Friday night concert in the park. Businesses, particularly those in the service sector, have halted or restricted their operations, either voluntarily or by government order, in an effort to curb the spread. In these uncertain times, many businesses want to seek coverage ... Keep Reading »

New Jersey Proposes Bill That May Require Insurers to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

March 23, 2020 by Christina Gallo

As the United States faces a surge in confirmed cases of COVID-19, New Jersey is proposing a bill that would require property insurers that cover risks in New Jersey to pay for business interruption losses due to the disease, despite their policies expressly excluding coverage for losses due to viruses or bacteria. The law, which would take effect immediately and be retroactive to March 9, 2020, is aimed at reducing the financial impact of the coronavirus on New Jersey’s ... Keep Reading »

Ransomware Attack Replacement Costs Are Covered “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Under Standard Business Owner’s Policy, According to Maryland Federal Court

March 6, 2020 by Alex B. Silverman

A Maryland federal court recently weighed in on the still-murky world of insurance coverage for cybersecurity losses, finding replacement costs necessitated by a ransomware attack were “direct physical loss or damage” to a computer system within the meaning of a business owner’s policy. Even as insurers continue efforts to develop cyber insurance products, National Ink demonstrates potential exposure to carriers under existing non-cyber ... Keep Reading »

Flooded: Court Finds “Named Windstorm” Coverage, and Not Flood Sublimit, Applies to Superstorm Sandy Water Damage Claim

February 28, 2020 by Daniel G. Enriquez

When the National Weather Service names a storm heading in your direction, you know to expect wind and water. This can create a quandary for property insurers. Is water damage from a named windstorm caused by the flood or the storm? This distinction can mean millions. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, a three-judge panel from the Superior Court of New Jersey held that the New Jersey Transit Corp. was entitled to $400 million in ... Keep Reading »

Florida Court Holds Carrier’s Basis for Botched $149K Ferrari Payment Defied “Common Sense”

February 17, 2020 by Carlton Fields

A familiar dispute between a carrier and a third party involves the third party’s attacking the language of the insurance contract and arguing in favor of an interpretation not reflected by the plain meaning of the text. But in a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, World Finance Group LLC v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., it was the third-party lienholder that benefitted from the “plain meaning” of the text. This case stemmed from a March 2014 accident ... Keep Reading »

Massachusetts High Court Upholds Consent-to-Settle Provision, Protecting Insurer Who Did Not Have the “Final Say”

February 12, 2020 by Kelley Godfrey

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently heard an appeal regarding a particularly obstinate insured, ruling that recognition of a consent-to-settle provision does not in and of itself violate an insurer’s duties under Massachusetts’ claim settlement practices statute. Specifically, in Rawan v. Continental Casualty Co., the court held that Continental was not in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 176D, section 3(9)(f), which mandates that an ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • …
  • 48
  • 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

  • Florida District Court Orders New Trial After Jury Allowed to Hear Evidence on Claim Handling in Insurance Breach of Contract Claim
  • Sixth Circuit Finds No E&O Coverage for GL Carrier Under E&O Policy for Underlying Motel Claim
  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim

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