Join Marshall Gilinsky and John Lacey of Anderson Kill, along with Brian Della Torre of ARMR, for a CLE webinar focused on navigating sexual abuse claims through insurance recovery. Learn how to locate and leverage historic liability policies, understand allocation and occurrence issues, and overcome common insurer defenses. Discover how institutions can access valuable coverage through strategic claims, litigation tactics, and insurance archaeology.
Join Steven J. Pudell and Christina Yousef of Anderson Kill and William Harrison of Gallagher for an engaging CLE webinar introducing the fundamentals of insurance coverage. This session breaks down the differences between first-party and third-party claims and provides an overview of key insurance policies—including general liability, property, D&O, E&O, employment practices, cyber, commercial crime, and product recall. Through real-world examples and practical tips, the panel will highlight common challenges policyholders face and how courts have addressed key coverage issues. Ideal for those new to insurance or looking for a comprehensive refresher.
Arson-related insurance claims are rising—and so are the risks for insurers who don’t investigate thoroughly and by the book. Guest contributor Melissa A. Segel breaks down how carriers can use modern tools, smart strategy, and legal precision to uncover fraud while steering clear of costly bad faith pitfalls. A must-read for anyone navigating the intersection of fire science and insurance law.
A Significant Deviation: Target v. Ace Finds Loss-of-Use Damages Included Post-Breach Card Replacement Analysis On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Target”) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage. Target Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-2916 (WMW/DTS), 2022 WL 848095 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2022), vacating 517 F. Supp. 3d 798 (D. Minn. 2021). The new decision deviates from how other courts have evaluated general liability coverage for damages because of “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” Insurers would do well to take notice. Background In 2013, Target was the victim of a massive data breach that occurred after hackers installed malicious software on its computer network, which enabled them to steal the payment card data and personal contact information of an estimated 110 million individuals with Target payment cards (the “Data Breach”). Multiple lawsuits were brought against Target, including suits by financial institutions (the “Issuing Banks”) that had issued debit and credit cards (the “Payment Cards”) affected by the Data Breach. The Issuing Banks filed class action [...]
Plastics-Related Liabilities and Insurance Recovery with Mikaela Whitman Joining me to discuss this important civil statute is Mikaela Whitman for what was an informative and insightful podcast on this potentially enormous area of litigation. It’s based on her article — One Word: Plastics. Two Words: Pollution Exclusion. Why CGL Policies Should Cover Plastics-Related Liabilities — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation in January 2021. Mikaela (mwhitman@pasichllp.com) is a partner in Pasich LLP’s New York office and a member of the firm’s insurance recovery practice. Her practice focuses on the representation of insureds in all phases of insurance coverage recovery, from pre-suit negotiations through alternative dispute resolution and litigation. The Journal and Podcast are part of a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Mikaela is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. As we see liability actions relating to plastics creeping into the nation's dockets, what types of claims will survive? How much more of this might we see? And if it really hits the fan, how will insurance companies respond? Will policyholders find protection in their [...]
Is a drug company that's sued in connection with the manufacture, promotion and distribution of opioids covered by its insurer for defense costs? According to Laura A. Foggan and Michael Lee Huggins of Crowell & Moring, LLP, that determination will come down to whether, in the relevant state, an accident takes place when either the act or the injury was unintentional, or whether an accident occurred if only the act was unintentional. This definition will vary by state, Foggan and Huggins wrote in California Litigation, published by the Litigation Section of the California Bar earlier this year. South Carolina may permit coverage if "either the act or the injury was unintentional," they explained. In Liberty Mutual v. J.M. Smith, the Fourth Circuit held that if a drug company failed to identify and alert regulatory agencies of suspicious drug orders, then there may be a duty to defend. But in California, the Crowell & Moring attorneys wrote, with that state's definition of "accident" a state appellate court in Travelers v. Actavis held that a "deliberate act is not an accident, even if the injury is unintentional, unless the injury was produced by an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening." In that case drug company Actavis allegedly engaged in deceptive marketing in order to sell more opioids and reap more profits. According to Foggan and Huggins, [...]
