Policyholder Pulse
In recent years, Wisconsin generally has been a pro-policyholder jurisdiction when it comes to long-tail environmental coverage cases. That trend continues with a decision by a Wisconsin appellate court in a case involving coverage for environmental cleanup costs at a former manufactured gas plant site. In Superior Water, Light & Power Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Nos. K22700, CX2900, and CX2901, the court reversed a lower court and held that there may be coverage under historic policies if there was damage to groundwater during the policy period, notwithstanding that site operations had ceased years earlier. This is an important decision, as the same historic London Market “occurrence” definition was used in many policies issued to other policyholders by London Market Insurers during the same time frame. (A description of some of the unique aspects of the London insurance market can be found here.)
Published on:
A Recent “Event” in Wisconsin: Appellate Court Rules That a Commonly Used London Market “Occurrence” Definition Is Ambiguous
Insurers have recently argued that environmental property damage claims for “closure” costs arising out of historic pollution are not covered, because the claimed damages are just “ordinary costs of doing business.” Policyholders should strongly resist denials based on this argument, which is unsupported custom and practice in the insurance industry and contradicts the terms of standard-form third-party liability policies, applicable environmental laws, and insurance law in nearly all jurisdictions.
A little over a month ago, a judge in Franklin County, Ohio, held that Bitcoin—a popular form of cryptocurrency—constitutes covered “property” under the terms of a traditional homeowner’s policy.
Imagine your organization has suffered significant property damage and interruption to your business as a result. The cause could be anything—a natural disaster, severe mechanical breakdown or a cyberattack. You notify your property insurance carrier and adjust the claim, submitting calculations of your losses based on the policy’s coverages and other terms. But in response, your carrier only agrees to pay a fraction of the losses, claiming that otherwise your organization would be better off than before the damage—“unjustly enriched”—and that insurance is not meant for gain, but only to put the insured in the position it would have been without the damage.
A recent case in the Fifth Circuit, 
season, it seems like natural disasters have been near constant over the past year. In addition to the catastrophic toll these events take on people and communities, the toll on a business can be high. Understanding the full range and implications of your company’s risks, and putting the right coverage in place to protect against those risks, is vital. When a natural disaster strikes, having appropriate levels of property damage, business interruption and contingent business interruption insurance can be three keys to stability.
injury or property damage is excluded only if the insurer can demonstrate resulting damage was expected or intended by the insured. In 
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a hot topic in industries from manufacturing to the medical profession. Developments in the last 
investigation of claimed losses, but policyholders often do not fully understand the investigation process or coverage issues it raises. They may not review the policy requirements to understand their obligations with respect to the claims process. This post addresses insurance coverage considerations when the insurer wishes to investigate your claim for loss under a property policy.
devastating events, damages are estimated to top $5 billion. As Californians file insurance claims to cover their losses, coverage for flooding and mudslide damage has come into focus.