Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Last week, in Golden Bear Insurance Company v. 34th S&S, LLC, a Texas federal court held that an insurer had no duty to cover a personal injury judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limit. The holding reminds parties in Texas to carefully consider the most basic—and sometimes very particular—requirements surrounding Stowers demands.

Policyholders purchase insurance policies as a safety net, promising financial protection in times of need. However, that safety net can disappear when an insurer rescinds a policy—a devastating consequence for potentially innocent policyholders. We recently published a post following a Fourth Circuit decision addressing this issue. The Ninth Circuit has also addressed this issue, most recently in the decision discussed below.

Last week, the Delaware Insurance Commissioner announced a series of process and regulatory improvements to the state’s captive regime. Building upon last year's significant amendments to DGCL 145(g) expressly permitting captives to cover D&O liability, Bulletin No. 14 outlines several requirements for captives to write Side A D&O policies for Delaware corporations, including several process changes intended to improve approval timelines and speed to market.

The explosive growth of representations and warranties (R&W) insurance over the last decade is no secret.  But, for many, R&W insurance remains an enigma, particularly as respects filing a claim under such policies.  Indeed, even those involved in buying R&W insurance may not have experience on the claims end and, as a result, possess little knowledge on how to navigate the assortment of issues that may arise.  Of course, policyholders pursuing a claim under an R&W policy should be aware of the minefield of issues that await in establishing the two primary thresholds to recovery: breach ...

On March 20, 2023, the Southern District of New York denied a policyholder’s claim for coverage and granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in Pine Management, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Company. The parties disputed whether a real estate liability insurance policy provided defense and indemnification for Pine Management, Inc. in an underlying lawsuit brought by numerous companies that Pine managed. A simple question proved pivotal in the outcome: whether Pine had timely sought coverage for its claim.

The Fourth Circuit recently held that a “literal” interpretation of a North Carolina insurance law was “poppycock.” Whitmire v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No. 21-1643 (4th Cir. 2022). The case involved a North Carolina statute that required an insurer to provide notice by mail addressed to the insured’s “last known post-office address in this State.” The person that was to receive notice under the statute had lived in North Carolina but then moved to South Carolina. The insurer provided notice at the person’s South Carolina address. It did not provide notice at the person’s last known address in North Carolina. So the beneficiary of the life insurance argued that notice did not meet the North Carolina statute because it was not provided at “last known post-office address in this State,” i.e. North Carolina.

A golf cart, at least according to a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling about insurance coverage for a minor driving a golf cart. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Gonalez, No. 21-13304.

The policy covered bodily injury arising from the use of a “private passenger, farm, or utility auto.” It defined “private passenger auto” as “a four-wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep-type auto, including a farm or utility auto as defined.”

Pugs’ button noses and claim recognition
Broad coverage grants and puppies who listen
Insurance policies tied up with strings
These are a few of our favorite things

Earlier this year, New York passed a law addressing dogs and homeowners’ insurance. Some insurers selling homeowners’ insurance policies will decide whether and how to issue coverage based on the type of dog residing with the homeowners. For example, these kinds of dogs may result in lower premiums or more favorable terms than other dogs: ^[1]

In T.D. Williamson, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that an insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured, a pipeline company, against a former director’s lawsuit. 21-5043, 2022 WL 1112530, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022). According to the appellate court, the policy’s “insured vs. insured” exclusion barred coverage. This exclusion is common in D&O policies. The exclusion generally eliminates coverage for claims by or on behalf of one insured against another insured. For instance, the exclusion may bar coverage for claims by a company against one of its executives or by former or current executives against other executives of the same company. There are various versions of the exclusion, but they usually contain exceptions, which provide for coverage in specific situations. These exceptions are frequently the subject of coverage disputes.

In this final post in the Blog’s Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series, we discuss the court’s ruling on the known loss doctrine and its interpretation of “occurrence” in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).

The Delaware legislature recently passed an amendment to the statute governing Delaware corporations’ ability to indemnify directors and officers. That statute—8 Del. Law 145—provides that Delaware corporations “may” purchase “insurance” to insure liability of their directors, officers, employees, and agents “whether or not the corporation would have the power to indemnify such person against such liability.” The recent amendment clarifies that “insurance” includes captive insurance. It states: “For purposes of this subsection, insurance shall include any insurance provided directly or indirectly (including pursuant to any fronting or reinsurance arrangement) by or through a captive insurance company organized and licensed in compliance with the laws of any jurisdiction . . . .”

This post in our Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).

In this post in the Blog’s Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series, we discuss the court’s ruling on the pollution exclusion in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).

The exclusion at issue was the standard qualified pollution exclusion used in some CGL policies in the mid-1970s. It excluded coverage for:

bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water; but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.

In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”).

Even an insurance practitioner’s grandmother would agree that an omitted comma can have dire consequences: compare “Let’s eat grandma with “Let’s eat, grandma.”  Yet, to the possible dismay of grammar purists and grandmothers, alike, and despite acknowledging that “the placement (or omission) of one comma can make the difference,” a federal court recently found that an omitted comma in an insurance policy provision had no impact on the policy’s meaning.

In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage.

Earlier this year, lawyers for plaintiffs applied to the MDL Panel for consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption cases in federal courts throughout the country.  On August 12, the Panel rejected plaintiffs’ requests for a single consolidation but requested briefing on the possibility of mini-MDLS as respects five of the insurers that accounted for approximately one third of these cases: Lloyds (26 actions), Cincinnati (70 actions), Hartford (130 actions), Society Insurance (24 actions) and Travelers (45 actions).  On Thursday, September 24, the Panel held a nearly three-hour hearing.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a ruling from the Northern District of Illinois that a subcontractor’s insurer must defend the general contractor in a negligence suit brought by an employee of the subcontractor for injuries suffered on the job.

To follow up on our post yesterday, an English court ruled in the test case regarding coverage of business-interruption losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will follow up with a post addressing the particulars of the 160-page decision.

On Tuesday, the English High Court will issue its much-anticipated ruling in “test cases” for coverage of business-interruption losses during the COVID-19 pandemic under sample policy wordings. Irrespective of the outcome, the London court’s ruling promises to be a significant development for the insurance markets in the UK, as billions of pounds in potential insurance claims are at stake and––beyond this––policyholders and/or insurance companies can be expected to argue that one or another of the findings supports their position(s) for interpreting similar policy language in future COVID-19 business-interruption coverage cases.

The FCA Test Case

In the first action of its kind since the agency was established in 2013, the British markets regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), engineered the test case process earlier this year to seek legal clarity over insurance companies’ obligations to cover business-interruption claims in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Brought before the English High Court (a trial level court in the UK), the FCA test case involves around 370,000 policyholders and eight insurance companies. The case was heard by Judge Christopher Butcher, who sits in the Commercial Court, and Judge Julian Flaux from the Court of Appeal.  Experienced English counsel prepared and presented arguments to the tribunal for expedited consideration and resolution. The FCA hired a solicitor firm, which instructed well-regarded barristers from Devereux Chambers and Fountain Court Chambers; the insurers engaged their own solicitors and barristers.

A Massachusetts intermediate appellate court recently found no coverage for a general contractor listed as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s general liability insurance policy. The general contractor sought coverage for a negligence action brought by an employee of the subcontractor regarding workplace injuries.

A North Carolina court recently ruled in favor of all sums allocation. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. AG Insurance SA/NV, No. 17 CVS 5594 (N.C. Sup. Ct.). In that case, Duke Energy is seeking coverage for “liabilities linked to coal combustion residuals (‘CCRs’), i.e., coal ash, at fifteen Duke-owned power plants in North and South Carolina.” In a recent summary judgment decision, the court resolved a dispute between Duke and TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, about whether all sums allocation or pro rata allocation applied.

An appeals court has overturned an insurer’s successful dismissal of an insurance coverage lawsuit arising from the insurer’s refusal to defend a North Carolina assisted living operator in a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging more than $60 million in damages. The court held that that the insurer improperly denied coverage under the operator’s professional liability policy (covering “damages resulting from a claim arising out of a medical incident”) because the alleged improper billing had a causal connection to the operator’s failure to render medical professional services and, therefore, “arose out of” a covered medical incident.

A federal court recently added prejudgment interest for the period before and after an arbitration award despite the panel’s prior refusal to award interest. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-9527 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020).

The California Supreme Court ruled that vertical exhaustion applied to determine how a policyholder could access its excess insurance policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, No. S244737 (Cal. Apr. 6, 2020). The case involved coverage for Montrose Chemical Corporation’s environmental liabilities at its Torrance facility under insurance policies issued from 1961 to 1985. Montrose and its insurers agreed that Montrose’s primary policies were exhausted but disputed the sequence in which Montrose could access the excess insurance policies.

Insurance companies can become insolvent. This is an ongoing issue in Puerto Rico following hurricanes Irma and Maria. In addition to Real Legacy Assurance Company’s insolvency, Puerto Rico’s Insurance Commissioner reportedly fined various insurers for delays in handling claims. Even if your insurance company is insolvent, it may have purchased reinsurance. While the general rule is that a policyholder cannot make a claim directly against the reinsurer, there are exceptions to the rule. One such exception is when the reinsurance contract contains a “cut-through” ...

The Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co. matter involved a dispute over coverage for sexual assault claims against Fetzer. Three women filed suit against Fetzer, claiming that John Fields, an independent dealer of vacuums manufactured by Fetzer, verbally and sexually assaulted them. Fetzer’s alleged liability was premised on, among other things, its negligence in supervising its independent contractor’s hiring process. Fetzer settled with each of the three women.

On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit found that Lloyd’s syndicates may not subrogate against an additional insured and may not force that additional insured to arbitration. Lloyd’s Syndicate 457 v. FloaTEC, LLC, No. 17-20550 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2019).

On March 22, 2019, a federal judge in Michigan found in Alticor Global Holdings, Inc. v. America Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., that claims of copyright infringement by several major record labels are potentially covered under liability policies issued by AIG.  Alticor involved a claim for coverage stemming from suits by a group of entertainment companies against Amway, “accusing it of infringing hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings.”  Amway sought coverage from its umbrella insurer, AIG.  AIG claimed that the personal injury and advertising injury coverage did not apply because “coverage extends only to advertisements of a Named Insured,” i.e., Amway, and the underlying suit related to advertisements of Amway independent business owners.

The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC.  Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned.

In a recent Client Alert, Hunton insurance lawyers Mike Levine, Sergio Oehninger and Josh Paster discuss the impact of the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co., where the Court confirmed that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation. The decision underscores the importance of understanding how a policy’s language and definitions impact the scope of information that policyholders must consider when representing facts and circumstances in ...

A California federal court found coverage under AIG’s general liability policy for the defense and indemnity of email scanning suits against Yahoo!. Those suits generally alleged that Yahoo! profited off of scanning its users’ emails. Because the allegations gave rise to the possibility that Yahoo! disclosed private content to a third party, the court found that the suit potentially fell within the coverage for “oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” Thus, AIG’s duty to defend was triggered.

The court also ...

Blockchain, or distributed ledger technology (“DLT”), is already proving to be a game-changer for businesses globally and across sectors. But is it secure? And can insurance help protect against risks and, thus, help advance the development of this technology?

On April 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding that an exclusion barred coverage for a $700,000 loss resulting from a social engineering scheme. Aqua Star (USA) Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am., No. 16-35614 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2018). The scheme involved fraudsters who, while posing as employees, directed other employees to change account information for a customer. The employees changed the account information and sent four payments to the fraudsters.

As we have previously written, students accused of hazing can obtain coverage under a parent’s homeowners’ policy. See our prior post. A recent New York decision provides the latest example.

In a recent brief filed in the Sixth Circuit, American Tooling Center, Inc. argued that the appellate court should reverse the district court’s decision finding no insurance coverage for $800,000 that American Tooling lost after a fraudster’s email tricked an employee into wiring that amount to the fraudster. As we previously reported here, the district court found the insurance policy did not apply because it concluded that American Tooling did not suffer a “direct loss” that was “directly caused by computer fraud,” as required for coverage under the policy. The district count pointed to “intervening events” like the verification of production milestones, authorization of the transfers, and initiating the transfers without verifying the bank account information and found that those events precluded a “finding of ‘direct’ loss ‘directly caused’ by the use of any computer.”

A California state court recently rejected an excess insurer’s attempt at an early exit from litigation over whether it owes coverage for cyber liabilities. In that case (previously summarized here), the policyholder, Cottage Health, suffered a data breach resulting in the disclosure of patients’ private medical information. Subject to a reservation of rights, Cottage Health’s primary insurer, Columbia Casualty, paid millions of dollars to help respond to the data breach and to defend and settle a class action lawsuit filed against Cottage Health. Cottage Health’s excess insurer was Lloyd’s.

A recent decision highlights the need for businesses to carefully consider the applicability of insurance coverage across borders. In this case, the owners of an Idaho restaurant traveled to Thailand for business related to the restaurant. While in Thailand, thieves stole uniforms and decorations from the owners, who then submitted an insurance claim. The insurer denied the claim because the policy only covered property within the "coverage territory," which was limited to the U.S., its territories, and Canada.

In prior posts (here and here), we have highlighted some potential coverage concerns for losses arising out of the use of blockchain technology. However, as previously reported, Blockchain technology’s relevance to insurance is not limited to coverage for losses. In fact, earlier this week, the Blockchain Insurance Industry Initiative known as B3i expanded its membership to include heavyweight insurance companies like Chubb, AIG, and Gen Re as well as notable insurance and reinsurance brokers like Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Willis Re, and JLT Re.

Three significant insurance disputes are pending before the New York Court of Appeals, and Hunton partner Syed Ahmad discusses the importance of those cases in Law 360’s article titled 3 Insurance Cases To Watch At NY’s High Court.

Since our first report last year, Lemonade Insurance, a tech start-up that planned to offer peer-to-peer insurance products, has launched in four states, offering homeowners and renters insurance in New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. Lemonade’s cutting-edge use of technology and its alternative business model could prove disruptive to the insurance industry.

In a recently filed brief in the Ninth Circuit, Cottage Health argued in support of the federal district court’s stay of Columbia Casualty’s lawsuit against Cottage Health in favor of Cottage Health’s parallel state court lawsuit against Columbia Casualty.

Last week, the Second Circuit remanded environmental coverage litigation between Olin Corporation and OneBeacon based on its conclusions that (1) all sums allocation applied and (2) a prior insurance provision allowed OneBeacon the opportunity to show that prior excess insurers had made payments for the same claims, thereby reducing OneBeacon’s liability for Olin’s remediation costs at five manufacturing sites.

The district court had calculated OneBeacon’s liability on a pro rata allocation. Based on the New York Court of Appeals’ intervening decision in Viking Pump (previously covered here, the Second Circuit found that an all sums allocation should apply. The decision thus allows Olin to obtain full indemnification under OneBeacon’s policy for amounts spent to remediate the manufacturing sites, up to the limits of that policy. Because the district court had applied a pro rata allocation based on pre-Viking Pump case law, the Second Circuit remanded for the district court to recalculate damages.

Ride and homesharing technologies like Uber and Airbnb are now ubiquitous. Slice, an on-demand insurance provider, seeks to fill the gap between the demands of these on-the-go services and traditional insurance contracts, which may not cover home rental or car sharing. Slice users can pick and choose the dates for which they receive coverage. So, for example, a homeowner that rents her home to Airbnb renters for two nights can obtain coverage solely for those two nights.

Many commentators have predicted that the use of blockchain technology will greatly expand in the coming years. They envision uses in all types of business, including the healthcare sector, financial services arena, and supply chains.

Policyholders are often surprised to hear that their policies cover more than the run-of-the-mill claim. For example, a general liability policy may cover a cyber-related loss. See our prior post. As a more recent example, a federal court in South Carolina found that a parent’s homeowners’ policy obligated an insurer to defend a college student against hazing allegations. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ingraham, No. 7:15-cv-3212 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2017).

The ABA announced last week that it would supplement its insurance coverage offerings to include cyber insurance. Chubb Limited will underwrite the insurance, which the ABA said “includes cyber coverage for a firm’s own expenses, such as network extortion, income loss and forensics, associated with a cyber-incident as well as for liability protection and defense costs.”

In its press release, the ABA referenced the revelations late last year that Chinese citizens had hacked two law firms to obtain information regarding mergers. The hackers then used that insider ...

On March 31 and April 15, we wrote blog posts (which can be accessed here and here) about a D.C. federal judge's decision to rescind MetLife's systematically important financial institution (SIFI) status. On October 24, a D.C. Circuit three-judge panel heard oral argument of the appeal of that decision. The federal government advocated to reinstate MetLife's "too big to fail" designation by arguing that regulators were not required to prove the insurance giant was likely to collapse before imposing enhanced federal oversight. Conversely, attorneys for MetLife argued that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) acted arbitrarily by not partaking in any threshold analysis of how MetLife would be vulnerable to a financial collapse.

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a long-running dispute involving Viking Pump’s and Warren Pumps’ claims for recovery under primary, umbrella, and excess insurance. The Delaware high court had certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals. The Delaware decision follows the New York high court’s ruling in May that the policies required “all sums” allocation and “vertical” exhaustion” (click here and here for prior posts).

Andrea DeField’s update, and her original post discuss portions of the proposed Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance and how they may alter the consequences for breaching the duty to defend. The proposed Restatement contains many other provisions that may prove relevant to future coverage disputes, particularly ones governed by state law that is less developed than in states like New York, California, and Florida.

Yesterday, a federal court found that FIFA’s D&O insurer is obligated to reimburse and advance legal costs for the defense of Eduardo Li, one of the defendants in the FIFA racketeering and fraud prosecution. Li v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 15-cv-6099 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016). Li was the president of the Costa Rican soccer federation, an executive member of the soccer association for North and Central America (CONCACAF), and a member of FIFA standing committees. Along with other FIFA executives, he was indicted this past summer and charged with racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy.

Yesterday, a federal court found that FIFA’s D&O insurer is obligated to reimburse and advance legal costs for the defense of Eduardo Li, one of the defendants in the FIFA racketeering and fraud prosecution. Li v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 15-cv-6099 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016). Li was the president of the Costa Rican soccer federation, an executive member of the soccer association for North and Central America (CONCACAF), and a member of FIFA standing committees. Along with other FIFA executives, he was indicted this past summer and charged with racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy.

As an update to our March 31 post about MetLife shedding its SIFI designation, the court recently released its opinion detailing the reasoning behind its order. The court found two reasons to overturn MetLife's designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI), which the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) placed on MetLife after finding that "material financial distress" at MetLife could "pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States."

On April 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a trial court’s decision that Travelers must defend a class action against its policyholder, Portal Healthcare Solutions, arising out of Portal’s alleged failure to safeguard confidential medical records. In the class action, the plaintiffs contended that Portal had allowed their private medical records to be accessed on the internet for more than four months by a simple Google search of a patient’s name. Portal sought coverage under provisions in two Travelers policies that provided coverage for alleged injury arising from “electronic publication of material” that “gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life” or that “discloses information about a person’s private life.”

Last week, Chubb announced that it would begin offering personal lines coverage in four states for costs related to cyberbullying. The coverage would reportedly insure costs for “psychiatric services, rest and recuperation expenses, lost salary, temporary relocation services, education expenses, professional public relations services, and cyber security consultants.”

The cyberbullying protection would cover expenses up to $60,000. Chubb will offer the coverage to its homeowners insurance policyholders who purchase a Family Protection policy, which Chubb says ...

Yesterday, a federal judge in the District of Columbia rescinded a regulatory order designating MetLife as a systemically important financial institution (“SIFI”). In December 2014, MetLife joined AIG and Prudential as the only insurance companies designated as SIFIs – a designation that subjected the insurers to additional regulation by the Federal Reserve and additional capital requirements. Unlike AIG and Prudential, MetLife took its challenge to the federal courts. And yesterday the court rewarded MetLife’s persistence.

The court released only a two-page ...

A federal court in New York has held that an insurer carries the burden of demonstrating which, if any, defense costs should be allocated to the defense of non-covered entities. High Point Design, LLC v. LM Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-7878, 2016 WL 426594 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016). The court ruled that once the policyholder established that amounts were spent defending covered claims, the burden shifts to the insurer to show that certain of those amounts resulted from the defense of other claims against non-covered entities. To meet that burden, the insurer was required to show that the relevant costs would not have been incurred but for the non-covered claims.

Lemonade, a new insurance start-up that intends to offer peer-to-peer insurance in the US, received a recent boost when it announced that several well-known insurers, including Lloyd’s of London underwriters and Berkshire Hathaway’s National Indemnity Company, have signed up to provide reinsurance backing to the new venture.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called Zika an international public health emergency. The insurance industry is taking notice. Civil authorities have already begun to issue notices, like the Center for Disease Control’s travel notices for areas in which Zika transmission is occurring. As highlighted by Marsh in a recent blog post, the potential for action by civil authorities can create problems for some policyholders.¹

Prior blog posts discuss new laws imposing, among other things, insurance-related requirements on ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft (also known as transportation network companies or TNCs) and their drivers. While many states have passed such laws, the Florida legislature is now dealing with competing proposals for regulating TNCs. On Tuesday, a Florida Senate committee unanimously approved a bill to regulate TNCs. A different bill is making its way through the Florida House. Both bills include insurance requirements but the devil is in the details.

States continue to increase their regulation of ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft (also known as Transportation Network Companies or TNCs) and their drivers. The increased regulation comes with increased insurance obligations and Farmers Insurance is expanding a new product to fulfill those requirements. As one example, the governor of Ohio recently signed a bill that includes insurance coverage requirements applicable to TNCs and their drivers. To help remedy the potential coverage gaps that must now be filled, Farmers announced on Monday that it would expand its ridesharing coverage to Ohio.

A federal court in New York recently found that litigation concerning damages related to a third party’s product recall required a defense under a commercial general liability policy. Thruway Produce, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94846 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2015).