Resolving an issue of first impression, the California First District Court of Appeal recently decided that property policyholders required to submit to an examination under oath (EUO) have a right to record the entire examination proceeding, including by capturing the insurers’ representatives and adjusters on video.
Judgment Preservation Insurance (JPI), also sometimes referred to as Judgment Protection Insurance, has become both more requested and available in recent years. As more plaintiffs seek ways to protect court judgments, more insurers are prepared to assume the risk of insuring such risks and so have entered the market and expanded capacity. As a result, what was formerly a niche insurance product has, of late, been more widely discussed and considered by prospective policyholders, raising the question of whether your company should consider JPI if you win a substantial sum in a trial court.
In recent months, the United States-Mexico border has seen an unprecedented surge of migrants. With this wave, various state and local authorities across the nation have expressed a strain on their public resources and housing capacities. To relieve overwhelmed border towns, Texas Governor Abbott initiated a migrant relocation plan to bus migrants to certain “sanctuary cities” like New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Los Angeles.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down a big win for policyholders just in time for the holidays. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, the court joined the mainstream of jurisdictions and reversed years-old precedent that severely limited policyholders’ ability to tap their liability coverage for construction defect and faulty workmanship claims.
“Insurance neutrality” is a common law bankruptcy standing doctrine that bars insurers from interjecting in chapter 11 plan proceedings. However, as James P. Bobotek and Andrew V. Alfano explain in “The ‘Insurance Neutrality’ Doctrine is Heading to SCOTUS,” in an appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Kaiser Gypsum, the Supreme Court will determine “[w]hether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a ‘party in interest’ that may object to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.”
The London Engineering Group’s LEG 3 exclusion—one of three standard form provisions issued by the London Engineering Group addressing coverage arising from construction or design defects—is an increasingly common defects exclusion found in Builder’s Risk and other policies covering projects under construction. LEG 3 is popular due to its reputation in the industry as providing the broadest form of cover available and excluding only “improvements.” Insureds typically accept additional premiums and/or higher deductibles in order to obtain this provision in their policies.
This summer, the courts dealt Harvard University a brutal one-two punch.
First, in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit—bringing nearly a decade of expensive litigation to a close by gutting affirmative action practices in student admissions.
On November 15, 2023, join PFAS Insurance Recovery Taskforce members Tamara Bruno and Scott Greenspan for “PFAS Insurance Coverage: The Policyholder’s Roadmap to Recovery.”
During this PLI event, Tamara and Scott will explore the most significant court decisions on PFAS coverage issues, provide a guide to registrants on the major coverage issues raised by PFAS claims under legacy and current insurance policies, and offer strategies to policyholders for insurance recovery of PFAS claims.
To register, click here.
In recent years, corporate directors and executives have faced challenges from conservative groups opposed to corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with some efforts taking the form of shareholder litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the use of affirmative action in university admissions provides new ammunition for these claims and is likely to embolden potential claimants.
Long a feature of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) liability insurance policies, the so-called “Bump-Up” Exclusion has gotten significant attention over the last few years. Because of the recent escalation in securities litigation that follows a majority of mergers and acquisitions, the Bump-Up Exclusion is of critical importance to publicly traded policyholders. Bump-Up Exclusion provisions are often found in a D&O policy’s definition of “Loss” and purport to exclude the amount of a settlement or judgment that represents an increase in the price paid to acquire an entity, where such consideration was alleged to be inadequate. A recent decision out of the Delaware state courts affirms again that D&O insurers will be held to the specific terms of their Bump-Up Exclusions.
