SDV Insights

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25, 2018, and despite the publicity and prognoses of doom, it did not have any immediate earth-shattering effects. At most, you may have noticed a flood of requests to re-subscribe to websites or to review a company's updated privacy policy. In fact, many non-EU-based businesses may not even notice that the GDPR is now effective because they have been dismissing it as a regulation that "does not apply to us."

Recently, National Casualty Company ("National") filed suit in the Southern District of California, claiming that it should not be required to cover court-imposed sanctions against its insured, the National Strength and Conditioning Association ("NSCA"). The sanctions were imposed after CrossFit Inc. ("CrossFit") acquired judgments against the NSCA in two false advertising suits based on a study published by the NSCA that depicted false information about injuries in CrossFit.

In a recent pro-policyholder decision, a federal court in Colorado ruled that, under Massachusetts law, an insurer must defend an au pair placement agency under its Travel Agents and Tour Operators General and Professional Liability Policy in a class action lawsuit alleging that the agency conspired to set au pair rates of compensation below market rate in violation of federal and state minimum wage laws and consumer protection laws.

The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.

The extreme cost and harm of the opioid crisis in the United States is well-documented, and the California Supreme Court is set to decide if insurance coverage is in play for many related lawsuits. Courts across the country have seen an influx of lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies for their role in the ongoing epidemic. The allegations have come from all over and in many forms, from wrongful death and personal injury claims to products liability and derivative suits.

Indemnification provisions and agreements are commonplace in contracts across all industries. The pervasive use of contractual indemnification in business transactions has resulted in state regulation called anti-indemnity laws. While the exact prohibitions of anti-indemnity laws vary by state, they generally prohibit one party from absorbing the sole negligence of another.

In Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an Employer's Liability Exclusion in a commercial general liability policy does not bar coverage of an underlying personal injury lawsuit because of the ambiguity within the language of the exclusion.

In a new decision, a Washington State appellate court ruled recently that insureds may sue an insurance adjuster personally for bad faith claims handling. The decision is unusual and has interesting implications for policyholders and insurance companies nationwide.

Claims-made insurance policies are designed to protect policyholders from liability for claims brought during the relevant policy period. From the perspective of the insurer, these policies have the distinct advantage of providing certainty that when the policy period ends without a claim having been made, the insurer will not be exposed to any further liability.

A recent federal court decision, applying California law to directors and officers liability policies, addressed two important issues: the importance of a policyholder's strict compliance with a claims-made-and-reported policy's notice provision, and the importance of accurate representations in an insurance application.