Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Talks About Hot-Topic Insurance Cases From 2019
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Industry News

In a June 18, 2019 article published in Law360, Hunton insurance team partner Syed Ahmad analyzed some of the most important insurance cases from 2019 so far.

Mr. Ahmad first touched on a pair of rulings from the Montana Supreme Court. In each, that court refused to find coverage for consent judgments negotiated by policyholders. The court in Abbey/Land v. Glacier Construction Partners rejected an underlying consent judgment because it was unreasonable and flowed from collusion between the underlying parties. Then, in Draggin’ Y Cattle Co. v. JCCS, the court reversed a trial court’s holding that an underlying consent judgment was presumptively reasonable, holding that the judgment did not deserve a “presumption of reasonableness,” because the insurer had not breached its duty to defend.

As Mr. Ahmad explains, these two rulings highlight the shortcomings of stipulated settlements. These judgments can raise “thorny issues about procedure, burdens and eventual resolution of disputes with insurers.” And so they are tools of “last resort” for policyholders.

Mr. Ahmad then discussed W. Bend Mut. Insurance Co. v. Ixthus Med. Supply. There, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a medical supplier’s carrier must defend the company in an advertising-injury suit. Though the insurer argued that a “knowing violations” exclusion barred coverage, some counts alleged in the underlying complaint did not require a finding of intentional conduct. The complaint thus alleged “at least one potentially covered advertising-injury claim.” As a result, Wisconsin’s high court held that the insurer had to defend.

The opinion, as Mr. Ahmad notes, is important because the court looked to the elements of the counts alleged, not the accusations of intentional conduct spattered throughout the complaint. According to Mr. Ahmad, courts could apply this rationale to many types of insurance cases, requiring a defense if the policy “potentially” covers part of a claim, despite the claim’s overarching factual allegations. Our March 8, 2019 blog post analyzes the case in more detail and expounds on the logic behind the court’s decision.

A copy of the article can be found here. Copies of Abbey Land and Draggin’ Y can be found here and here. And a copy of Ixthus can be found here.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 1 Minute Read

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP partner Syed Ahmad was quoted on July 20 in a Law360 article titled “R&W Insurance Claim Frequency Expected To Normalize.”  The article discussed the recent reduction in R&W claims and industry experts’ expectations that claim frequency will return to normal levels this year.  Mr. Ahmad commented on the challenges policyholders may face when disputing claims in court.  In particular, while there is plenty of case law regarding disputes between buyers and sellers over breaches of representations and warranties, there is very little precedent on how ...

Time 1 Minute Read

After any merger or acquisition, disputes can arise regarding the accuracy of representations and warranties made by the seller to the buyer. In most transactions today, the buyer obtains representation and warranty insurance to cover the buyer for losses resulting from the seller’s breach of a representation or warranty. When an R&W policy provides coverage, a seller may attempt to offset its obligations to the buyer by amounts paid by the R&W insurer. Likewise, the R&W insurer may attempt offset against the damages paid by the seller to the buyer. But other legal and equitable ...

Time 4 Minute Read

On December 9th, the Eleventh Circuit held that a loss of over $1.7 million to scammers was covered under a commercial crime insurance policy’s fraudulent instruction provision.

Time 5 Minute Read

The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law.  In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff).  The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old.  Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation.  Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist.  A copy of the decision can be found here.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page