Do Insurers Have an Interest in Interest?

“In some states, interest can be a significant portion of a judgement,” Goldberg Segalla partners Jonathan Schapp and Michael T. Glascott explain. “Although it is not generally expected that interest on a judgment falls within the coverage provided under a commercial general liability policy, many policies contain a Supplementary Payment provision which could give rise to an obligation to reimburse such interest.” In a new article for Claims Journal, Jon and Mike take an in-depth look at how interest accrues, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
Continue reading...

Changes to New York State Insurance Law Affect Auto Policies, Neonatal Intensive Care Coverage, and Exposures for Mortgage Guaranty Insurers

Frederick J. Pomerantz, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services and Insurance Regulatory Practice Groups, has authored three alerts on changes to New York State insurance regulations in the November 2017 edition of the Federation of Regulatory Counsel (FORC) Alerts. In the alerts, Fred details notable recent changes pertaining to private passenger auto policies, neonatal intensive care services, and exposures for mortgage guaranty insurers. Analysis of Non-Renewals of Private Passenger Auto Policies Effective October 23, 2017, Section 1, Paragraph
Continue reading...

Texas Extends Emergency Adjuster Licensing Eligibility Period from 90 to 180 Days due to Extensive Claims Resulting from Harvey

Texas Insurance Code §§4101.002(b) and 4101.101 authorize carriers to immediately use nonresident and emergency adjusters to handle claims. Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas on August 25, 2017. As the Code authorizes — and with the relocation of hurricane victims and other personal hardships sustained by residents of counties covered in the governor’s disaster proclamations due to the effects of Harvey — the Texas Insurance Commissioner has just signed Order # 2017 dated November 16, 2017. This order extends for
Continue reading...

Massachusetts Court Holds that All Excess Policies are Created Equal

In Massachusetts, competing excess insurance policies will apply equally to provide excess coverage even if one policy is a true excess policy and the other is a hybrid policy that provides either primary or excess coverage depending on the circumstances. See Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2017 WL 4969942 (Mass. Nov. 1, 2017). In a November 1, 2017 opinion, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the plain language of the insurance policies was the determinative
Continue reading...

The Modern Fraudster: How Courts Are Responding to Social Engineering Fraud

In an article for Insurance Journal, Goldberg Segalla partner Jonathan L. Schwartz and associate Colin B. Willmott, members of the Global Insurance Services Practice Group in the firm’s Chicago office, write about social engineering fraud (SEF) and questions over availability of insurance coverage for SEF under commercial crime policies — an issue the Second and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals are set to clarify in 2018. SEF includes now-common types of fraud involving digital communications: phishing/whaling, spoofing, and impersonating or pretexting. “A common example [of SEF]
Continue reading...

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Bad Faith Does Not Require Proof of an Insurer’s Self-Interest or Ill-Will

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled today that the Pennsylvania bad faith statute does not require a plaintiff to prove that an insurer was motivated by self-interest or ill-will when denying benefits under an insurance policy. Instead, the court’s decision in Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company adopted the standard established by the Pennsylvania Superior Court 23 years ago in Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Company, under which a bad faith claim is established by clear and convincing evidence that the insurer did not
Continue reading...

DFS Partially Clarifies Who Qualifies for an Exemption Under Cybersecurity Regulation

By the terms of 23 NYCRR 500.19(e), Covered Entities that have determined they qualify for a limited exemption from compliance under 23 NYCRR 500.19(a)-(d) of New York’s new Cybersecurity Regulation — as of August 28, 2017 — are required to file a Notice of Exemption with the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) on or prior to September 28, 2017. The first compliance date of August 28, 2017 in New York’s cybersecurity regulation, and the date for Covered Entities
Continue reading...

“Twisting in the Wind: Covered Agreement Dangling by Uncertainty and Politics,” AIRROC Matters

In an article for AIRROC Matters,  Frederick J. Pomerantz examines the uncertain status of the “Covered Agreement,” a novel multilateral insurance agreement between the United States and the European Union. Early advocates hoped that the agreement would result in an “equivalency recognition” between U.S. and EU insurance regulatory systems. According to state insurance regulators, the agreement falls short of this, but does include provisions that would bring these insurance markets closer by eliminating obstacles for U.S. reinsurers doing business in the EU
Continue reading...

Insurer Scores a Slam Dunk in TCPA Suit Before the Ninth Circuit

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit is sure to catch the eye of insurers for its favorable reasoning rejecting coverage as well as a potential warning sign that policyholders are seeking coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suits beyond CGL policies. In Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 15-55777, 2017 WL 3613340 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017), the Ninth Circuit determined there was no coverage for violations of the TCPA under a D&O policy. In
Continue reading...

Excess Coverage Means Excess Coverage, Unless it Doesn’t: Texas Court Holds Umbrella Policy is Excess over a Primary Policy that is “Excess by Coincidence”

Not all excess coverage is created equal. Some excess coverage is true excess coverage of last resort. But other times, excess coverage is not. For example, a Texas Federal Court recently ruled that a true excess policy applied as excess over a CGL policy that was excess due to the circumstances of the underlying action. By way of background, Pace was the real estate manager for the property owner, Dolce. Pace was an insured under Dolce’s CGL policy, with $1
Continue reading...