SDV Insights

If you are a sophisticated business with a claims-made policy, there is a case you should be aware of.

In a recent article for the AGC's Constructor e-Newsletter, SDV's Gregory Podolak and Turner Construction's Kevin King discussed how "Relying on the CGL Policy to Protect You from Professional Risk is a Recipe for Disast

SDV partner Greg Podolak has been quoted again in a Law360 article. In “Data Breach Report Shows Cyberinsurance Not A Cure-All”, Greg, and other thought leaders in the industry, were asked about a recent report that covered challenges faced by many companies in managing cyber risks.

It’s that time of year again! No it’s not favorites for our March Madness brackets . . . but the area of our own expertise.

On February 24, 2016, in a ruling with grave implications to additional insured coverage and the risk transfer process, the Fifth Circuit in Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co. overturned the Eastern District of Louisiana), and broadened the application of the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act to void indemnity and additional insured coverage.

Builders risk insurance is an important instrument of protection for any construction project. However, not all builders risk policies are the same - the limits and scope of coverage afforded can vary dramatically. Ensuring that effective coverage is in place requires an understanding of the risks of loss unique to the particular project

If you are a risk manager of a multi-national company, and you haven’t heard of Article 29 Working Party (WP29), it’s time you become acquainted. It is an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy.

In a significant win for policyholders, the Texas Supreme Court refused to revisit its 5-4 decision that a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency constitutes a "suit" within the meaning of the Commercial General Liability policy.

SDV is proud to introduce a new State by State survey showing each state’s interpretation of the CGL pollution exclusion.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals recently held that, despite a jury finding that the homeowners intentionally misrepresented material facts, the insurer was required to pay attorney fees after the insurer lost its counter-claim against the homeowners.