As outside coverage counsel for corporate policyholders, we see firsthand how corporate risk management and legal departments interact and work together—or don’t. Some risk management and legal departments are in sync. They tackle intersecting insurance and legal issues through a unified front, to the company’s benefit. But others seem to operate in silos. This can present a number of coverage pitfalls—from failing to pursue coverage in the first place to jeopardizing claims that have been made. Here are a few of the most common problems we see when risk management and legal departments are not working in harmony, and some practical tips for avoiding them.
Published on:
Strong Collaboration Between Legal and Risk Management Departments Is Key to Maximizing the Value of Your Company’s Insurance
Cannabis is now fully legal in 
Your factory is flooded and manufacturing line destroyed. A hacker breaks into your computer system and erases customer data even though you paid the ₿1,000 ransom in bitcoins. A jury just returned a $5 million verdict against your company and an employee who got into an accident while texting and driving to a client meeting. These may all be insured events, but how long can your business survive while you wait until your insurance company decides whether to pay your claim? 
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.
A little under two years ago, we wrote about 
The world of patent defense insurance is evolving. What once was governed by a routine part of the “advertising liability” section of the Commercial General Liability policy is now the focus of specialized insurance products, the contours of which are still being defined.
When adding new or additional layers to an insurance program, policyholders are often asked to sign a “warranty letter” providing comfort to the prospective insurer that the policyholder is not aware of impending claims. Typical warranty letters include both subjective and objective representations, indicating that the policyholder has both no actual (or subjective) knowledge of any impending claims and no reasonable (or objective) expectation that such a claim will arise. If a claim later arises, these warranties may provide a basis for full rescission of a policy or create an exclusion for claims that the policyholder knew or should have known would be filed. And when a warranty is poorly worded or overly broad, it may give rise to a morass of coverage litigation.
The Supreme Court of Texas delivered good news to policyholders insured under a “Joint Venture Provision” endorsement commonly used in the oil and gas industry. In 
It’s time-proven advice: Never underestimate the power of an apology. This is true even in a legal context, and especially during a corporate crisis—an event with the potential to materially harm a company’s reputation or bottom line due to alleged negligence, malfeasance or other liability-driven factors. But even when an apology is a sound crisis and liability management tool, insurance and legal defense considerations can complicate its use. Policyholders are well-advised to proceed with care—and should neither automatically rule out an apology to relevant stakeholders and victims, nor issue apologies without fulsome consideration of the potential insurance and legal defense implications.
Have $57 million (or more) to spare? You’re going to need it if you run afoul of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) without cyber insurance.