It is a settled principle of insurance law that a liability insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify. In most jurisdictions, if any portion of a complaint against a policyholder is even potentially covered, the insurer must defend the entire action.
What is subrogation? Why am I being asked to waive it? Should I care? To answer that last question, let’s take a quick run at the first two.
What Is Subrogation?
“Subrogation” refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It is a legal right held by most insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss in order to recover the amount the insurance carrier paid the insured to cover the loss. This occurs when (i) the insurance carrier makes a payment on behalf of its insured as the result of a covered accident or injury, and then (ii) the insurer then seeks repayment from the at-fault party.
As summer vacation rolls around and hotels, restaurants and other hospitality companies gear up for a busy tourist season, coastal businesses in the U.S. Southeast, Puerto Rico and the Caribbean may be welcoming an unexpected guest—the Great Atlantic Sargassum Seaweed Belt. Businesses are bracing for this ten-million-ton mass of brown seaweed, which is floating on the ocean surface and extending from the west coast of Africa to the Gulf of Mexico.
As discussed in a previous post, cyber insurance demand and premiums have significantly increased in recent years. Fitch Ratings forecasts that cyber-related premiums could balloon to $22.5 billion by 2025. Those increases presumably reflect considerable claims activity, including in connection with liabilities arising from war and state-backed cyberattacks. To manage these exposures, insurers in the cyber market are increasingly relying on changes to their policies that attempt to carve out some or all of this liability from coverage. A recent example of this trend, which may significantly alter the cyber insurance landscape, is playing out right now in the London Market.
Loyal readers of this blog may recall our recent analysis of Norwegian Hull Club v. North Star Fishing Co., an insurance coverage dispute that appeared likely to turn on the meaning of a blank space in a very large builder’s risk policy. After bench trial, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle has filled that gap—giving the policyholders most, but not all, of the coverage that they sought. Under the judge’s decision, based upon industry custom and practice, that blank space provided the policyholder with nearly $20 million in extra coverage.
The rare insurance dispute has appeared on the horizon for the nation’s highest court. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to take up the case of Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, on appeal from the Third Circuit. The key issue: whether a choice-of-law provision in a marine insurance policy can be rendered unenforceable if its enforcement would conflict with the “strong public policy” of the forum state.
When Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act in 2008 (BIPA), the concept of “biometric privacy protection” was foreign to many observers. Yet less than 20 years later, consumers are familiar with the concept of biometric privacy and class action plaintiffs’ lawyers have spotted an opportunity. As many other states and cities have enacted (or are in the process of enacting) analogous biometric privacy laws, class actions are likely to increase. And like night follows day, insurers will look for ways to avoid their obligations to cover these claims.
In “Court of Appeals Finds That Insurers May Not Participate in Bankruptcy Negotiations by Invoking an Insured’s Duty to Cooperate,” colleagues James P. Bobotek and Andrew V. Alfano examined a recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit that found, among other things, that an insurer was not a “party in interest” and lacked standing to object to a plan because, by leaving the insurer’s rights and obligations under the policy intact, the plan was “insurance neutral.”
Amidst the recent surge in ransomware attacks on U.S. businesses—with crypto criminals and sometimes State actors invading and encrypting computer and operating systems and extorting funds in exchange for the decryption key—one new ploy deserves attention from our perspective as insurance coverage lawyers. A new scheme involves demanding that the target provide details of its cyber insurance policies so that the payment demands can be adjusted to fall within the coverage the victim purchased.
In the last decade, per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS) increasingly have become the subject of actual or potential liability for a widening group of companies, with potential liability arising from both private tort lawsuits and governmental enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. In a recent Practical Guidance® Practice Note, Insurance Coverage for PFAS Liability, our colleague Tamara Bruno provides a comprehensive breakdown of this rapidly growing area of coverage need.
