Winning a championship ring is everything. Just ask the Los Angeles Dodgers, who won 11 National League West titles between their 1988 and 2020 World Series Championships and would likely have traded several of those division titles for more World Series championships. But, of course, not all rings are equal. Neither are sports collectibles.
Times of crisis can bring out the best in people. Unfortunately, times like this can also be an opportunity for exploitation of inexpensive, and potentially forced, labor. As America reopens its economy, it is likely that we will begin to see a surge in many industries. The resulting demand for labor, coupled with unprecedented unemployment and related desperation not only in America, but worldwide, could lead unscrupulous individuals and companies to exploit American and foreign workers. We saw this with previous disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, where foreign laborers were exploited in the rebuilding process with false promises of citizenship. Now, to be clear, exploitation occurs even during times of economic prosperity; however, it can be even more pronounced and egregious when people must deal with uncertainties and hardships never before experienced in their lifetimes.
It’s a familiar story to anyone involved in insurance claims. A policyholder is sued and tenders the claim to its insurer. The insurer agrees to defend subject to a reservation of rights, but it also asserts that policy exclusions may ultimately preclude coverage. While the underlying litigation is ongoing, the insurer files suit against the policyholder seeking a declaration that it does not have a duty to indemnify if liability is established against the policyholder in that litigation.
Does the coverage in commercial general liability (CGL) policies for violations of the right to privacy extend to unwanted intrusions, or is it limited to the disclosure of personal information to a third party? On a recent request for clarification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, the California Supreme Court may be poised to answer this question under California law, which could have wide-ranging effects on companies seeking CGL coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims.
A little over two months ago, we analyzed the recent decision in Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Insurance (UK) Ltd., which placed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in line with a consistently expanding number of jurisdictions finding that a subcontractor’s faulty work constitutes an “occurrence” (defined as an accident) under standard form CGL language. The Tenth Circuit’s decision emphasized the “near unanimity” of state supreme court decisions since 2012 finding that construction defects constituted an occurrence (for example, New Jersey). Days after publishing our post on the Tenth Circuit’s decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court faced the same question. But rather than join the growing trend, the Kentucky court doubled down on its previous decision addressing the issue, finding for a second time since 2010 that a contractor’s faulty workmanship was not an “occurrence” under a CGL policy.
A critical step in a property insurance claim is the investigation undertaken by the insurer to gather information about the claim. Insurers generally have obligations and rights to conduct a prompt 
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.
Of course, you can’t change the unfortunate fact that you’re facing a loss, but there are certain steps that you can take before, during and after an investigation to put yourself in the best possible position for coverage under your policy.
As James Taylor might say, I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain, but will my insurance cover the damage? California has certainly seen plenty of fire and rain. In the aftermath of the state’s most recent 
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.
As summer comes to a close, road repair crews across the country are identifying the street repairs and potholes that must be filled before the cold weather approaches. Now is also a good time for policyholders to identify some of the “potholes” that may accompany their claims-made insurance policies and get them filled before it is too late.
In the world of Directors and Officers insurance, no coverage may be less understood than the Side A Difference in Conditions (DIC) policy. While this type of insurance is generally available in the 
market, the vast majority of corporate policyholders do not know what the policy covers or whether it’s worth purchasing in the first place. Even corporations that have Side A DIC coverage are often mystified by how the policy works in conjunction with their standard form D&O policies, and are unaware of how to trigger that coverage when a claim arises. This post seeks to bring Side A DIC coverage—which often sits shrouded in darkness at the top of a D&O tower—into the light, and provides a primer on the significant safety net the policy provides for officers and directors.
A panda is sitting in a bar, polishing off his dinner. He pulls out a gun, fires a shot in the air, and heads toward the exit. A stunned waiter demands an explanation. The panda pauses at the door and tosses the waiter a badly punctuated wildlife manual. “I’m a panda—look it up.” The waiter turns to the appropriate entry: “Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.” [1]
Beware the missing Oxford comma!
That was the lesson of a recent decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the omission of an Oxford comma in a Maine employment statute created an ambiguity that must be resolved in favor of dairy delivery drivers. For want of a comma, the dairy is out $10 million.
Policyholder Pulse