PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

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 »

New York’s Highest Court Rejects ‘Unavailability of Insurance Exception’ Under ‘Pro Rata Time on the Risk Allocation’

April 9, 2018 by Alex B. Silverman

On March 27, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that under a “pro rata time on the risk allocation,” insurers are not liable for years outside their policy periods when there was no insurance available to the insured in the marketplace. See KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Re. Am., Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 02116 (N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018). The decision is a significant victory for insurers faced with long-tail environmental claims, and may also lend support to ... Keep Reading »

Drawing a Line in the Sand: The Second Circuit Tries to Define Where D&O Coverage Ends and E&O Coverage Begins

March 30, 2018 by Amanda Proctor

Facebook

Policyholders often obtain both errors and omissions (E&O) and directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policies because they provide complementary coverage. E&O policies provide coverage for claims for wrongful acts arising from the provision of "professional services," and while D&O policies also provide coverage for claims for wrongful acts, they often exclude coverage for such claims arising from the provision of professional services. Despite ... Keep Reading »

AIG Won’t Have to Defend Carfax in $50 Million Antitrust Suit

March 19, 2018 by J. Robert MacAneney

AIG Carfax Car Lot

On March 1, a New York appeals court ruled that American International Group, Inc. (AIG) need not defend Carfax, Inc. against a $50 million suit alleging the company monopolized the vehicle history report market. The decision affirmed the lower court’s determination that the matter did not fall within the insuring agreement and that, even if it did, it would be precluded from coverage based on the application of the policy’s antitrust exclusion. In May 2017, AIG ... Keep Reading »

‘Me Too’ Coverage Implications for Employers

March 9, 2018 by Jillian Orticelli

Sexual Harassment Complaint Form

When an employer negligently supervises an employee who commits separate acts of sexual harassment against three different co-workers on separate occasions, how many "occurrences" are there under a standard commercial general liability policy? The Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, considered this question in Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 16 CV 1570 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2017), and concluded that the answer is three. Three Times the Harassment In ... Keep Reading »

Dot the I’s and Cross the T’s: the Importance of Clarity in Claim Communications and the Availability of Punitive Damages for an Insurer’s Bad Faith Failure to Settle

March 2, 2018 by D. Barret Broussard

Jury

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently made waves in Hughes v. First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc., 343 Ga. App. 693 (2017). First, it aggrandized the role of a jury in determining the existence of an offer to settle a claim where the text of purported offer letters was not in dispute. Second, it subtly reminded litigants that punitive damages are available in a bad faith failure-to-settle claim where the claim sounded in tort and had not been ... Keep Reading »

Defining Indemnity in the Context Of Actual Cash Value Calculations

February 26, 2018 by Heidi Hudson Raschke and Jonathon C. Held, JS Held, LLC.

“The basic premise of traditional property insurance is the concept of indemnity. The insured who suffers a covered loss is entitled to receive full, but not more than full, value for the loss suffered, to be made whole but not be put in a better position than before the loss.” In re: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 872 F.3d 567, 573 (8th Cir. 2017). The concept of indemnification for loss is at the core of property insurance reimbursement. Insurance policies are ... Keep Reading »

When Relying on a Prior Acts Exclusion to Deny Coverage, Be Sure to Connect the Dots

February 26, 2018 by Benjamin Stearns

Bank Owned Real Estate Sign

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 16-16702 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that a “prior acts” exclusion in a D&O policy did not bar coverage where the insurer failed to prove a clear connection to events that occurred before inception of the insurance policy. As this case demonstrates, when an insurer relies on a prior acts exclusion to deny coverage, it not only must establish the wrongful ... Keep Reading »

Opening the Pandora’s Box of Flood Policies, or How Filing Suit Against Flood Insurers Can Effectively Reduce the Suit Limitations Period

February 16, 2018 by Jason Morris

When is an insurer’s “Rejection of Proof of Loss” letter for flood insurance damage, which states on its face that it “is not a denial of your claim,” nevertheless a written denial of claim? According to the Third Circuit in Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 17-1434 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018), the answer is whenever “the policyholder treats it as such by filing suit against the carrier.” If a flood policyholder treats a proof of loss rejection as a claim ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • …
  • 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

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

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