In a pro-policyholder ruling, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently held that a homeowner’s claims against an insurance agent for negligence and gross negligence, seeking punitive damages, survived a motion to dismiss based on the insurance agency’s course of dealing with the homeowner. The decision, Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Insurance Agencies, Inc., et al., is a win for policyholders and demonstrates how the North Carolina Supreme Court is willing to balance the normal expectation that a person must read what he signs with an insurance agency’s role in inducing the policyholder to do otherwise.Continue Reading North Carolina: Policyholders Not Contributorily Negligent for Agent’s Misstatements
Alec Covington
Alec is a partner in the firm’s Commercial Litigation practice and has broad experience in complex litigation, with emphasis on financial services litigation, insurance coverage, and business torts. He is part of the NC insurance recovery practice at the firm, which is ranked by Chambers USA, and has been recognized individually in several national and statewide publications. He has handled disputes at the trial and appellate level, including class actions, and is also experienced in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association and JAMS. His broad experience in business litigation includes high-stakes disputes involving mergers and acquisitions, business torts, fiduciary claims, and a variety of contractual claims. The clients he represents span a wide range of industries and have included Fortune 100 companies, small and midsize businesses, individuals, and nonprofit institutions.
North Carolina Supreme Court Unlocks the Door to COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage, Holding that Pandemic-Era Restrictions on Use of Property Constitute “Direct Physical Loss” to Property
Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in North State Deli, LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, siding with a group of North Carolina restaurants that sought business interruption insurance for losses they sustained because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the court held that those restaurants sustained “direct physical loss” to property, as that phrase is used in their commercial property policies, when COVID-19 government orders restricted the restaurants’ use of and access to their property, resulting in the suspension of their operations and the loss of income. In reaching this holding, the Supreme Court of North Carolina joined the Supreme Court of Vermont as the only other state supreme court to have ruled in favor of policyholders on the question of COVID-19 business interruption insurance coverage. Continue Reading North Carolina Supreme Court Unlocks the Door to COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage, Holding that Pandemic-Era Restrictions on Use of Property Constitute “Direct Physical Loss” to Property
Tips for Pursuing Insurance Claims and Disaster Relief Funding in North Carolina After Hurricane Helene
Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida on September 26, 2024, eventually making its way up to western North Carolina where it caused unprecedented damage. The estimated costs associated with these damages grow daily, with AccuWeather currently estimating losses between $145 and $160 billion. Earlier this week, we issued an alert with general tips policyholders should consider when pursuing insurance claims for hurricane-related losses. As damage reports continue to come in from portions of western North Carolina that have been cut off from regular communications, we are updating our guidance for North Carolina policyholders.Continue Reading Tips for Pursuing Insurance Claims and Disaster Relief Funding in North Carolina After Hurricane Helene
North Carolina Supreme Court Provides Guidance to Policyholders Attempting to Maximize Insurance Coverage for Long-Tail Claims
When seeking insurance coverage for “long-tail” mass tort and environmental claims that involve alleged exposures and injuries spanning multiple years, businesses often look to their occurrence-based commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. These policies are designed to provide broad coverage for defense costs, settlements, and potentially adverse judgements. However, CGL policies generally cover “occurrences” during one-year policy periods and renew on an annual basis, which can complicate efforts to seek coverage for claims involving alleged injuries or property damage spanning decades. Moreover, for severe claims, businesses may need to obtain access to one or more of their excess CGL policies. Therefore, determining which policies to pursue, whether policies in multiple policy periods will respond, and how to access valuable excess coverage are factors that should always be considered with coverage counsel when facing long-tail exposures. Courts across the country are divided on how these questions should be answered. A recent decision issued by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., provides guidance to North Carolina policyholders attempting to maximize coverage for long-tail claims.Continue Reading North Carolina Supreme Court Provides Guidance to Policyholders Attempting to Maximize Insurance Coverage for Long-Tail Claims