Recent Posts
Follow Us
twittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube
The Legal Stuff
BT Policyholder Protection Blog
0 0

08 Feb 2017 Coverage for Commotion: Insurance for Businesses Affected By Rioting and Vandalism

  Businesses can endure substantial property damage and, perhaps more importantly, lost revenue from civil disruptions caused by rioting and vandalism. Fortunately, business owners have a multitude of coverage options for these disruptions and should firmly resist an insurer’s attempt to deny or limit coverage.   Assume you own the fictional pub “Paddy’s Pub” on Sunny Lane in South Philadelphia. One evening, South Philadelphia residents peacefully march down Sunny Lane in protest of the latest government budgeting decision. At some point, rioting and vandalism ensue and a few residents begin vandalizing businesses on Sunny Lane—including Paddy’s Pub. To contain the situation, the police department shuts down Sunny Lane for the remainder of the day. What coverage may be triggered?   Commercial Property Coverage: Upon first…

READ MORE
0 0

28 Oct 2015 You Snooze; You Lose: When The Carrier’s “Investigation” (Read: Delay) Breaches The Duty To Defend

Earlier this month, a California federal court issued a stern warning to liability carriers: failing to provide an immediate defense forfeits your right to control the policyholder’s defense, including any right to select counsel, and, once forfeited, the right to control irrevocably vests with the policyholder. The carrier cannot regain control, even if it reimburses pre-acceptance defense fees. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Centex Homes, Case No. 11-CV-03638-SC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2015).   Carriers and policyholders have long been engulfed in the battle as to when a carrier’s delay (usually couched in terms of an “investigation”) leads to forfeiture of the right to control; and, when it does, whether the carrier may re-gain control by paying pre-acceptance defense fees. Policyholders are all too familiar with…

READ MORE
0 0

14 Nov 2014 Inaugural ABA Women in Litigation Conference

Kara Cleary and Andrea Warren, from Barnes & Thornburg’s Policyholder Insurance Recovery Group, attended the inaugural ABA Women in Litigation conference in Chicago on November 5-7, 2014. The conference partnered with the Women in Insurance Network to provide outstanding panels and networking sessions involving coverage litigators, in-house counsel, brokers, judges and other industry representatives.   Kara and Andrea’s work in the Policyholder Insurance Recovery Group led them to particularly appreciate the panels relating to cyber coverage, as well as coverage in the context of product liability suits and contractual indemnification obligations.   One panel discussing general litigation strategies made clear the importance and efficiencies created if a company can use a single database to house and manage claimant information and litigation documents when dealing with…

READ MORE
0 0

20 Jun 2014 An Expanding View On Satisfying The Self-Insured Retention

  Recent insurance coverage decisions have reminded insurance companies that, absent incredibly clear language otherwise, inconsequential requirements dictating satisfaction of self-insured retentions (SIRs) will not be enforced. As long as the insurer receives a “credit” equal to the amount of the SIR, courts have been reluctant to enforce requirements as to who pays the SIR or even whether the SIR gets paid. This makes sense. Insurers are responsible only for the amount in excess of an SIR; thus, it should make no difference who pays the SIR or even whether the SIR is paid. Either way, the insurer maintains the benefit of the SIR.   Many liability policies require that the insured satisfy an SIR before the insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify can be…

READ MORE
0 0

11 Jun 2014 Second Circuit Affirms The Broad Nature Of The Duty To Defend Under CGL Insurance Policies

  In a recent pro-policyholder insurance coverage decision, Euchner-USA, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 2014 WL 2576348 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014), the Second Circuit applied New York law and reminded insurance companies that the duty to defend is “exceedingly broad.” An insurance company has the duty to defend a claim even if there is only a possibility of coverage in light of how the underlying complaint against the insured has been pleaded.   Euchner sought coverage from its CGL insurer, Hartford Insurance, for an underlying action initiated by a former employee. In the underlying action, the former employee alleged that she was sexually harassed and then coerced into accepting an independent sales position disqualifying her from receiving “employee” benefits. She later added an…

READ MORE