Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Just two months ago, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker signed significant amendments to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). While the amendments limit businesses’ exposure to BIPA-related damages, significant BIPA exposures still persist. Given these continuing exposures, businesses should consider the protections that insurance can offer. The Illinois Appellate Court’s September 2024 decision in Tony’s Finer Foods Enterprises v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2024 IL App (1st) 231712 offers concrete guidance for businesses thinking about doing just that.

With increasing frequency, companies are coming under fire for changes in customer loyalty programs, many of which occur without warning or recourse. Whether it is a persistent devaluation of miles or points, arbitrary expiration dates or some other perceived loss of value, customers and regulators are becoming increasingly discontent with programs that are touted as an added value to repeat customers.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to revolutionize the business landscape, its associated risks are becoming more complex, widespread, and consequential. While the insurance industry determines the precise circumstances in which insurance may cover these risks, businesses should consider the complementary benefits of indemnification agreements as gap fillers.

In a recent client alert, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP real estate attorney Laurie Grasso and insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling, Cary D. Steklof, and Evan J. Warshauer discuss the important lesson real estate companies and their officers and directors can take away from the Illinois federal district court’s decision in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024). The court found a commercial general liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct, holding that the allegations did not fall within the policies’ definition of occurrence, which required “an accident.”

This summer, in Yacullo v. AIG Property Casualty Company, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California held that an insurer’s violations of the state’s insurance regulations “is a factor that may be considered by a jury” in determining whether the insurer acted in bad faith. The case should serve as an important reminder to policyholders to carefully consider state-specific insurance regulations when asserting a bad faith insurance coverage claim against their insurers.

Boston-based partner Geoffrey Fehling was recently sworn in as a member of the Town of Wellesley Historical Commission. The Commission was created to preserve and protect the town’s tangible evidence of the architectural, aesthetic, cultural, economic, political and social history.

In Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Qureshi, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals recently ruled that the lower court mistakenly allowed the jury to consider evidence of repair estimates in a claim for replacement cost value benefits where repairs were not actually completed. 2024 WL 3514542, at 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).

In today’s unpredictable world, the need for event cancellation insurance has never been more evident. Whether it’s a high-profile concert by a global superstar like Taylor Swift, an international sporting event like the Olympics, or the start of a much-anticipated football season, the potential for disruption looms large. Terrorism threats and extreme weather events due to the broad impacts of climate change contribute to the growing risks faced by event organizers, artists, and venues. Event cancellation insurance offers a critical safety net in the face of some of these uncertainties.

Benchmark Litigation has named insurance coverage partners Andrea DeField and Geoffrey Fehling to the publication’s 40 & Under List. Benchmark Litigation is the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. The 40 & Under List honors the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the United States. Those named to the list have proven their eligibility as individuals at the partner level of their respective firms who are 40 years of age or younger.

Part II of this series, Levels of Protection, addressed the levels of protection available under the SAFETY Act and their associated benefits. This post discusses how a company prepares and submits an application under the SAFETY Act to the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation (“OSAI”) and the important role outside counsel can play in that process.