Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog (2024)

The highest court in Massachusetts recently held that term “Flood” and the associated phrase “surface waters,” as used in two all-risk insurance policies, is ambiguous in the context of water that accumulated on a parapet roof and rooftop courtyard, thereby negating the insurers’ attempt to limit coverage to a sublimited coverage for “Flood.”

If your company has been impacted by today’s network outage issues, know that insurance may be able to help. Many, but not all, cyber and technology errors and omissions (“Tech E&O”) insurance policies include broad dependent business interruption coverage for losses caused by system failures of a company or vendor on which you rely to operate your business.

A recent New Jersey Superior Court decision highlights the risks policyholders face when officers or directors serve dual-capacity roles, such as participating on boards for multiple companies.

By Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Insurance policies typically require a policyholder to provide notice to the insurer. And the notice requirements can vary between policies. That is why the language of the notice provision can be critical to interpreting its requirements. But the language is not always clear. In a recent article published by Mealey’s Insurance, Hunton attorneys Syed Ahmad and Yosef Itkin examine this type of scenario where a court determined that the language of a policy’s notice requirement was indeed ambiguous and construed it in favor of the policyholder, finding that the notice requirement was satisfied.

Last week, in , a Texas federal court held that an insurer had no duty to cover a personal injury judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limit. The holding reminds parties in Texas to carefully consider the most basic—and sometimes very particular—requirements surrounding Stowers demands.

The Georgia legislature recently amended O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1, the statute that sets forth requirements for pre-answer settlement demands in motor vehicle personal injury cases, to temper use of such pre-answer settlement demands to set up bad faith failure-to-settle claims against insurers. These pre-answer demands are known as Holt demands based on the Georgia Supreme Court case of S. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267, 416 S.E.2d 274 (1992), which established that an insurer which fails to settle a claim for its insured—and is found to have done so negligently, fraudulently, or in bad faith—may be liable for damages in excess of the insurance policy limits.

By Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In a recent Client Alert, Hunton insurance partner Geoffrey Fehling discusses the impact of the California appellate court decision Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Co., where the court denied coverage under a directors and officers liability policy for a software developer’s $118 million settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve allegations that the company violated anti-kickback laws in designing and implementing sponsored alerts in electronic health records software.

The Northern District of New York recently denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad faith claim, finding that the complaint alleged that the insurer violated New York’s law against deceptive acts and practices. The statute provides key protections to policyholders and is an important tool that policyholders can leverage against insurers who wrongfully deny coverage.

The Los Angeles Superior Court recently gave the production companies that produced the Netflix series “House of Cards” their “maybe” by allowing the plaintiffs’ coverage suit against Firemans Fund Insurance Company to proceed. The court held that allegations in the third amended complaint facially satisfied the policy’s insuring agreement by alleging that House of Cards’ lead actor, Kevin Spacey, was “necessarily prevented” from continuing or completing his duties under his contract and that his sickness was the direct and sole cause of the plaintiffs’ claimed loss.The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, effectively ending the plaintiffs’ campaign to recover punitive damages.