As the old adage goes, “the devil is in the details.” Insurance policy terms do not always apply in ways that policyholders expect. For this reason, it is imperative to understand how coverages, definitions and exclusions work together to avoid surprise gaps in coverage. The Fifth Circuit found a coverage gap in a recent case holding that settlement contributions from co-defendants met an excess policy’s broad definition of “Other Insurance,” preventing the policyholder from securing coverage for a significant part of its losses.
When you’re buying a new car, you rely on a good salesperson to impress you with all of its features and gadgets. But when it’s time for maintenance, or when something goes wrong, you don’t go back to that salesperson to look at the problem. You find a trustworthy mechanic. At insurance renewal time, it may seem like you’re just buying a new set of policies, and that your broker is the only person you need to find out what’s available on the market. But policy renewal is also part of scheduled maintenance for your company’s risk management program. A policyholder-side insurance coverage attorney is the mechanic that can help you make sure it runs right.
On insurance coverage issues, sometimes the boat seems to be listing in the wrong direction. For example, insurers have long tilted the decks to avoid coverage for “spoofing” attacks and similar kinds of email fraud by throwing their weight behind arguments that such transactions do not involve a “direct loss” from the use of company computers to implement a fraudulent scheme, which they claim their policies require. But in the first half of July, not one, but two federal appellate decisions—
The conflict between policyholders and insurers over “long-tail” insurance coverage took an unfortunate turn with a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals on the issue of allocation for long-tail claims. On March 27, 2018, the court issued a 
A little over two months ago, 
A recent case in the Fifth Circuit, 
allocation clauses, found most commonly in Directors & Officers (D&O), Errors & Omissions (E&O), and Professional Liability (PL) policies. In our policyholder-side coverage practice, we are seeing insurers relying on these clauses more and more as an excuse to pay only a small fraction of the defense in mixed-claim cases, i.e., suits involving both clearly covered claims and claims that the insurer contends are not covered. We urge policyholders and brokers to review such clauses carefully and seek to modify them as necessary to ensure the complete defense to which the policyholder is entitled under the law.
With few exceptions, an application or warranty statement is an essential document to secure insurance coverage, and can actually possess great power to determine or limit coverage. Insurers may seek renewal applications or updated warranty statements, even when a policy is merely a renewal. While the application process may seem almost ceremonial, failure to engage fully in the application and warranty process can lead to unnecessary coverage disputes, or 
By statute, California law holds that willful misconduct—where an insured intends to cause someone harm—is not insurable as a matter of public policy. For years, insurance companies have sought to expand this prohibition to exclude coverage where anyone acts deliberately, regardless of the intent of the insured, or the insured’s intent to cause harm.
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.