Coronavirus Consumer Protection Class Action: First Up – Germ-X

In what will likely be the first of many consumer protection lawsuits involving the Coronavirus (COVID-19), a group of California consumers filed a federal class action complaint alleging Vi-Jon, Inc. falsely advertised, marketed, and sold its Germ-X brand hand sanitizers as being able to prevent viruses, including COVID-19. As the COVID-19 pandemic grows in size and scope, consumers are gravitating to products to provide some degree of security and comfort. In light of the CDC’s recommendations to use hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of …

Continue Reading

New Jersey Appellate Division Dismisses Broker’s Attempt to Hold Defense Counsel Jointly Liable for Failure to Report D&O Claim

The Appellate Division recently rejected an attempt by an insurance broker to assert contribution and common law indemnity claims against two law firms that represented a mutual client as part of a professional malpractice case the client filed against the broker. The holding confirms the narrow circumstances in which such claims can be successful under New Jersey law. The case is South Brunswick Furniture, Inc., et al. v. Acrisure LLC d/b/a Beckerman & Co. No.:A-2981-17T1, 2020 WL 1043114 (N.J. App. Div. March 4, 2020).

In …

Continue Reading

Part 5: A Game of “Who’s Who” Under the CCPA

This is our fifth blog post in a multi-part series addressing what insurers need to know about the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This post focuses on the differences between data collectors, service providers, and third parties. We also discuss data brokers and their specific obligations under the CCPA. While this post does not require any background on the CCPA, if you would like the benefit of our preliminary discussions before diving into this post we invite you to start with Part 1: The California

Continue Reading

Illinois Federal District Court Determines Policy Intent Trumps Policy Language

In an interesting decision handed down late last year, an Illinois federal district court in Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Truck Tire Sales, Inc. determined coverage was not available after carefully considering the policy intent and application for insurance. The district court held that irrespective of broad policy language, “the policy reflects that it was sought for the purpose of insuring [the insured’s] activities related only to [one part of its business].”

The dispute arose when an employee of the named insured, Truck Tire Sales, …

Continue Reading

Insurance Coverage Considerations Stemming from the New California Child Victims Act

On October 13, 2019, when California’s governor signed AB 218—the California Child Victims Act (CCVA)—California became one of at least nine other states to enact some form of window legislation for childhood victims of sexual assault. The CCVA became effective on Jan. 1, 2020. This article explores the CCVA’s pertinent changes to existing law for pursuing childhood sexual assault claims, as well as some of the key insurance coverage issues arising from this new law.

The text of the CCVA is substantively similar to other …

Continue Reading

Ohio Supreme Court Holds Insurers Not Responsible for Charging Liens

The Ohio Supreme Court held that an insurer who settles a personal injury claim with an accident victim has no duty to issue payment directly to the victim’s former lawyer pursuant to a charging lien.[1]

In the underlying personal injury matter, an automobile accident victim hired a law firm to represent him. The victim and his law firm entered into a contract that granted the law firm a charging lien on the proceeds of any insurance payment, settlement, judgment, or verdict that might be …

Continue Reading

Texas Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether to Adopt Exception to Eight-Corner Rule

At oral argument in the case of State Farm Lloyds v. Janet Richards,[1] the Texas Supreme Court heard from both sides on whether or not Texas courts should recognize a policy-language based exception to the eight-corners rule, applied when evaluating whether an insurer can introduce extrinsic evidence to contest its duty to defend the insured for a third-party liability claim. The so-called eight-corners rule allows a court to refer only to the relevant policy terms and factual allegations in the complaint against the …

Continue Reading

Depositing Policy Limits Does Not End the Duty to Defend

An Oregon federal court revisited a common coverage question that comes up from time to time: When indemnity for a loss is reasonably clear, can an insurer limit its defense expense exposure by simply depositing the policy limits with the court? The answer, according to this court, and most other courts around the country, is no.[1]

The liability policy in U.S. Fire Ins. V. Mother Earth School contained the commonly-found insuring agreement language which provides, in relevant part, that an insurer’s right and duty …

Continue Reading

Part 4: Privacy Policy Requirements Under the CCPA

This is our fourth blog post in a multi-part series addressing what insurers need to know about the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This post focuses on a business’ obligations when it comes to their privacy policy, such as including and disclosing certain information regarding consumers’ rights. While this post does not require any background on the CCPA, if you would like the benefit of our preliminary discussions before diving into this post we invite you to start with Part 1: The California Consumer Privacy

Continue Reading

Florida Court Requires Plaintiff to Plead More Facts About a Cause of Loss

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a property insurance case after holding that ambiguous, non-specific pleading of a cause of loss is not enough. Causation is often a focus in property insurance cases. The exact cause of a particular loss will determine if the loss is covered or excluded under the insurance policy—meaning whether a plaintiff-insured will recover from their insurer. However, in state and federal courts, plaintiffs often get by with pleading merely that “a covered loss occurred during …

Continue Reading