A couple months into the widespread shift to remote work for many employees on a temporary basis, an increasing number of companies are considering or already implementing a permanent shift to remote work for most or all of their employees. Unsurprisingly, this shift is rapidly occurring in the technology industry. For example, Twitter’s CEO announced this week that its employees will be allowed to work from home permanently. But it is also occurring across other industries, including the insurance industry. For example, Nationwide is planning to permanently exit its building space, other than four main campuses, before the end of the year and is moving its other employees to permanent remote-working status.
A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the insurance focus (understandably) has been on business interruption and event cancellation coverage. Various other coverages are in play as well, given the types of COVID-19-related claims and 
In the uncertain times ushered in by the COVID-19 pandemic, observers of the insurance law landscape can find footing in an old, familiar story: a single insured left deeply dissatisfied by her insurance provider’s coverage for an accident lawsuit against her. But in 
We have written much about 
When an insurer pursues a judicial determination on its duty to defend and agrees to defend its insured retroactively only five months after its insured initially requested a defense, has it breached its duty to defend? In most jurisdictions, the answer would be “yes.” In California, for example, an insurer must afford an immediate and entire defense in response to a tendered claim that is potentially covered under the 
Must an insurer consider the possibility that putative class members (i.e., potential class members not named in the complaint) other than the proposed class representatives (i.e., the plaintiffs named in the complaint to represent the proposed class) have claims within the proscribed policy period in determining whether its duty to defend has been triggered? Many insurers answer “no,” arguing putative class members’ claims—many of which would otherwise be barred by the applicable statute of limitations—are too speculative to trigger coverage. But courts across the country have disagreed, repeatedly answering the question in the affirmative. Last year, the Northern District of Indiana was the latest court to decide this issue in favor of policyholders.
Cyberattacks are an increasingly frequent and costly risk faced by almost every business today. While the availability and scope of cyber-specific insurance has developed exponentially over the past few years, it is important to remember that more traditional policies (such as general liability and first-party property insurance) can still be a source for coverage in connection with cyber incidents, as a recent court decision demonstrates.
There has been tremendous recent growth in the range of specialized insurance policies offered to protect against intellectual property (IP) claims including patent, copyright, and trademark infringement. “Traditional” policies, such as CGL and errors & omissions policies, typically provide narrow IP-related coverage, if any. As a result of this perceived coverage gap, IP-specific insurance products are growing in popularity as policyholders in IP-reliant industries look to bolster that aspect of their coverage portfolio. Because these policies are not always designed with an insured’s specific IP risks in mind and they are relatively untested in courts, it is important that prospective policyholders educate themselves about the market for IP coverage, including the types of coverages and specific policy wordings being offered. Here are a few practical tips to consider when securing such policies.