Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A recent ruling by a New York trial court highlights the duty of an insurer to timely respond to its policyholders. In Robert Vargas, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., No. 154323/13 (N.Y. Sup. Jan. 15, 2016), the court required an insurer to defend and indemnify its policyholder against lead exposure claims, even though the policy contained a lead exclusion, because the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was untimely.

Winter Storm Jonas has finally departed the mid-Atlantic, leaving behind snow depths best measured with a yardstick and, now, mounting reports of significant damage to property and resulting interruptions to businesses near and far from the path of the storm. Roof collapses under weight of snow and ice; flooding from burst pipes and broken water mains; fires caused by downed electrical lines; and food spoilage caused by losses of electrical power are but just a few of the impacts Jonas has left in his wake.

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.

On January 12, 2016, a federal court in Utah refused to dismiss a bad faith claim brought by Federal Recovery Services against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, despite finding that there was no duty to defend FRS under Travelers’ “CyberFirst Policy.” Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Federal Recovery Services et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00170. FRS sought a defense and indemnity for a lawsuit filed against it by Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, a fitness center operator. Global Fitness had alleged that FRS intentionally misused the credit card and bank account information of Global Fitness’ customers, which consequently interfered with FRS’s business dealings.

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.

After our December 15, 2015 post about the Discussion Draft of the Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance, the American Law Institute released Council Draft No. 2 on December 28, 2015. Relevant to my last post, Council Draft No. 2 contains revisions to §19 of Chapter 2, addressing the duty to defend. While the Reporters’ Memorandum notes that no substantive changes have been made to the black letter law of this section, the comments section has been revised to reflect a proposed intermediate approach. ALI Restatement of the Law: Liability Insurance, Council Draft No. 2 (not approved), Dec. 20, 2105 p. xiv. These revisions reflect a more moderate position than that taken in the previous Discussion Draft.

On December 14, 2015, a federal court in California denied Evanston Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss Uber’s breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Evanston Insurance Company v. Uber Technologies, No. 15-cv-03988-WHA (Dec. 14, 2015). The case concerns Evanston’s duty to indemnify Uber for claims arising from two car accidents during which drivers were allegedly logged on to the Uber App.

A federal judge in Indiana recently found that an insurer is not entitled to control the defense of its insured because a conflict of interest exists where the insurer is in litigation with the insured over an alleged policy breach arising out of the manner in which underlying litigation would be defended. Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00006-RLM-SLC, N.D. Ind. (Dec. 7, 2015).

At present, the general rule is that an insurer that breaches its duty to defend still may contest coverage. Signature Dev. Companies, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 230 F.3d 1215, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). However, the tides may soon change. The Discussion Draft of the Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance proposes that “[a]n insurer that breaches the duty to defend a claim loses the right to assert any control over the defense or settlement of the claim and the right to contest coverage for the claim.” See § 19, “Consequences of Breach of the Duty to Defend, ALI Restatement of the Law: Liability Insurance, Discussion Draft (April 30, 2015), p. 147. The proposed Restatement explains, “[t]he forfeiture-of-coverage-defense rule discourages insurers from attempting to convert a duty-to-defend policy into an after-the-fact defense-cost-reimbursement policy.” Id. at 148. The Restatement further explains that insurers should be wary to outright deny a defense. Rather, it suggests that “[t]he proper procedure is to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights and then, if appropriate, institute a declaratory-judgment action to terminate the duty to defend…If the insurer cannot, or does not choose to, file a declaratory-judgment action, it can preserve its coverage defenses by refusing to settle the claim while continuing to provide a defense (subject to the risks attendant to breach of the duty to make reasonable settlement decisions).” Id. at 149.¹

The Georgia Court of Appeals held on November 20, 2015, that compliance with an excess liability policy’s notice provision is not a precedent to coverage. Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. Stonewall Insurance Co., No. A15A1359 (Nov. 20, 2015 Ga. App., 3rd Div.). In Plantation Pipeline, the insured sought coverage for ground contamination originating from a 1976 pipeline leak. The leak was fixed and remediated shortly after it was discovered. In 2009, Plantation discovered further contamination at the site, which it again remediated. Plantation sought coverage for the remediation. Stonewall denied coverage based on the policy’s notice provision, contending that notice of the leak and remediation was untimely. The parties cross-moved for summary and the trial court granted Stonewall’s motion. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Plantation’s notice was not timely as it did not report the claim to Stonewall for more than two years. However, the majority agreed with Plantation that the notice provision does not “expressly stipulate that compliance with the notice provision is a condition precedent to coverage.” The panel further found that “the policy does not even contain a general provision that no action will lie against Stonewall unless, as a condition precedent thereto, Plantation shall have fully complied with all terms of the policy.” Thus, the panel found it was error for the trial court to preclude coverage based on a failure to provide timely notice.