Over the past several weeks, news reports and their accompanying headlines have signaled what could be a pitched battle between policyholders and insurance companies over coverage for COVID-19 losses. One article noted that “insurance companies are facing political pressure to pay what could be a crippling sum of coronavirus-related claims—even though many of them say their policies don’t cover pandemics.” The headline of that article declared: “Insurers scramble to avoid 9/11-style coronavirus backlash.” Another piece described how the insurance industry had flatly rejected pressure from federal lawmakers “to pay out on business interruption claims from small businesses shut down due to the coronavirus pandemic.” Insurance companies are asking their governments to provide subsidies to cover the losses. Against this backdrop, it is little wonder that lawmakers in Ohio, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have proposed legislation that would retroactively expand business interruption policies to cover losses due to the coronavirus outbreak.
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.
There has been a drumbeat of 
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