SDV Insights

It is well known that insurance policies universally impose a requirement that a "claim" be timely submitted. Unfortunately, this basic coverage condition is so well known that policyholders often overlook what exactly constitutes a "claim" under their insurance policy.

Builders risk claims routinely involve complicated and aggressive debate about the interplay between covered physical loss and uncovered faulty work. However, denials on this front have recently experienced a noticeable uptick in frequency, creativity, and aggressiveness.

The War and Hostile Action Exclusions have been standard exclusions in property and general liability policies for decades. With the rise of cyber claims, insurers have turned to these exclusions to deny coverage where the bad actor may have governmental roots.

In North River Ins. Co. v. Leifer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that a "prior knowledge" exclusion in a professional liability insurance policy excused the insurer from its duty to defend against malpractice claims brought against its insured. In so holding, the Second Circuit concluded that the insured failed to disclose facts and circumstances to its insurer that it knew or should have known could result in a future malpractice claim.

In National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Cargill, Inc., the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Minnesota law, recently addressed whether damages associated with an employee's embezzlement scheme would be covered under a policy for employee theft.

In the matter of Remprex, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, policyholder Remprex was thrust into two separate class actions, both involving alleged violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").

In the construction sector, the importance of closely vetting downstream parties' insurance has never been more critical. The markets have been hardening with no seeming end in sight and carriers are looking for any way to get an edge.

It is rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in cases involving issues of insurance. However, the Court's decision to grant certiorari in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 143 S. Ct. 999 (2023), may substantially alter the use of choice-of-law provisions in maritime insurance policies, and possibly, insurance policies in general.

Following significant backlash in reaction to the Nevada legislature's new law prohibiting enforcement of any provisions in liability insurance policies dictating that defense costs are included within the limits of insurance, the Nevada Division of Insurance issued an emergency regulation further clarifying the law.

The Southern District of New York recently ordered a directors and officers ("D&O") liability insurer to pay up to $4.5 million to reimburse an insured investment firm for the costs the firm incurred defending an arbitration proceeding brought by a former executive.