Entering 2020, corporate policyholders already faced a hardening insurance market. But as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc on global markets and sow civil unrest throughout the globe, and the insurance industry faces unprecedented losses, the market has further deteriorated entering 2022.

In fact, Reuters reported COVID-19 losses of $44 billion so far, which represents the third-largest cost to insurers of any catastrophe to date (behind Hurricane Katrina and the 9/11 terrorist attacks). These factors have not only made some insurance companies reluctant to extend new coverage, but have also incentivized insurance companies to deny or delay claims until their balance sheets recover.

Continue Reading In a Hard Global Insurance Market, Will Insurers Cover Political Risk Insurance Claims?

As COVID-19 continues to spread, recent news has highlighted the risk of “take-home” COVID-19 cases and the potential for “never-ending” liability for businesses. So-called take-home lawsuits are filed by employees’ domestic relatives for diseases or illnesses caused by exposures that allegedly traveled home through the employee.

On Jan. 12, 2022, Reuters reported “at least 23 take-home COVID-19 lawsuits” have been filed in the United States, including lawsuits against employers in the travel, retail and food-processing industries.

Continue Reading Increase in ‘Take-Home’ COVID-19 Litigation Creates Fear of ‘Never-Ending’ Liability for Employers

On Nov. 23, 2021, the New York Court of Appeals sided with the policyholder, resolving a decades-long insurance coverage dispute, J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., __ N.E.3d __, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 06528, 2021 WL 5492781 (Nov. 23, 2021). It held that a $140 million disgorgement payment to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was a covered “loss” rather than an uninsurable “penalt[y]” under the error and omissions/professional liability policies at issue.

The 6-1 majority opinion is a landmark decision on the insurability of disgorgement and restitution damages that will likely have ramifications for policyholders seeking to recover similar losses from their insurers in disputes in New York and throughout the country.

Continue Reading New York’s Highest Court Sides With Insured: $140M Disgorgement Payment Is Covered Loss

In an Aug. 12, 2021, opinion, the Delaware Chancery Court examined two seller-friendly purchase agreement provisions and held that public policy and Delaware law prevented the seller from invoking the provisions to block well-pled allegations of fraudulent inducement.

Online HealthNow, Inc. and Bertelsmann, Inc. v. CIP OCL Investments, LLC, et al. addressed allegations that the stock purchase agreement at issue was obtained through false and fraudulent statements contained in the agreement made by the seller and related entities. The agreement contained two provisions that were the focus of the court’s opinion. The first, the agreement’s survival clause, stated that all of the representations and warranties in the agreement would “terminate effective as of the Closing and shall not survive the Closing for any purpose,” effectively ending the statute of limitations period at the time of closing. The second, the non-recourse provision, noted that claims arising out of the purchase agreement could be asserted only against the parties to the agreement itself.

Continue Reading Delaware Court Holds Parties Cannot Negotiate Away Fraudulent Inducement Claims

On May 7, 2021, the operator of a major pipeline system that transports fuel across the East Coast fell victim to a ransomware attack that resulted in a six-day shutdown. Over the following week, East Coast stockpiles of gasoline dropped by about 4.6 million barrels and gas prices surged to their highest levels in six and a half years. The 5,500-mile-long pipeline provides roughly 45 percent of the fuel supplies for the East Coast, representing critical infrastructure for consumers from the Gulf Coast to Linden, New Jersey. Under mounting public pressure to respond and devastating losses to the company’s operational income, the operator authorized a ransom payment of $4.4 million to hackers. On May 31, 2021, one of the world’s largest meat suppliers disclosed that it was targeted by a ransomware attack that forced the company to shut down its meat processing plants in North America. As the meat processing plants depend on automation and computers for the production process, as well as processing of orders, billing and shipping, the company had no choice but to shut down operations. The company has not disclosed if it paid a ransom as part of its efforts to get back online.

Continue Reading Cyber-Insurance Considerations for Healthcare Providers Related to Ransomware Attacks

On March 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, a decision that will likely resolve a circuit split over the power of an arbitrator to issue third-party discovery subpoenas to obtain document discovery in foreign arbitrations.

The issue involves Title 28, Section 1782(a) of the United States Code, which governs a district court’s authority to provide discovery assistance in litigation in “foreign and international tribunals.” The interpretation of “tribunal” has caused confusion among courts.

Continue Reading High Court’s Upcoming Decision May Have Major Impact on Foreign Arbitrations

On Jan. 15, 2021, a New York state court judge issued an opinion denying an insurer’s motion to dismiss a claim for coverage under a representations and warranties insurance (RWI) policy in WPP Group USA, Inc. v. RB/TDM Investors, LLC et al. More specifically, the court rejected the insurer’s argument that the claim was subject to certain exclusions under the policy and ordered the parties to proceed with discovery.

The court’s decision is interesting in several respects — not the least of which is that judicial opinions relating to RWI policies are quite rare. RWI policies are generally purchased by transactional buyers seeking to guard against misrepresentations made by sellers during the acquisition process without having to seek recourse against the sellers themselves for any potential losses. Typically, these policies provide that any disputes concerning an insurer’s coverage or payment obligations are to be resolved in confidential arbitration proceedings that do not generate public opinions. The RWI policy at issue in WPP Group, however, provided the insured with the option of bringing claims regarding the policy in either confidential arbitration or in New York state or federal courts.

Continue Reading Arbitration vs. Litigation: More Than Just a Preference for RWI Policyholders