Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Subscribe to Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In a recent article appearing in Florida’s Daily Business Review (available here), Hunton Insurance Recovery Practice team head, Walter Andrews, explains why phishing and whaling scams should be covered by insurance.  In the article, Andrews notes that recent appellate decisions support policyholders’ reasonable expectations of coverage and reject insurers’ contentions that social engineering losses do not result directly from the use of computers.  Andrews goes on to explain that should a company find itself a victim of a phishing or whaling attack, it should carefully assess its insurance coverage to determine whether it applies to the loss, including under both traditional insurance policies and specialized cyber insurance products, and not be dissuaded by their insurers’ initial denial of coverage.

In a recent post, we discussed the Sixth Circuit’s holding in American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, No. 17-2014, 2018 WL 3404708 (6th Cir. July 13, 2018), where the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the insurer, finding coverage under its policy for a fraudulent scheme that resulted in a $834,000.00 loss. The insurer, Travelers, has now asked the Court to reconsider its decision.

Continue Reading Insurance Carriers Tell Circuit Courts To Reconsider Holdings For Coverage In Cybercrime Suits

In a July 9, 2018 article appearing in Insurance Law360, Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery practice head, Walter J. Andrews, explains why the Second Circuit’s decision in Medidata Solutions Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 17-2492 (2nd Cir. July 6, 2018), affirming coverage for a $4.8 million loss caused by a “phishing” e-mail attack, is a common sense application of the plain language of Medidata’s computer fraud coverage provision.  As Andrews explained, “[c]learly, hijacking — or spoofing — email addresses constitutes an attack on a company’s computer system for which a reasonable policyholder should expect coverage. A computer is a computer is a computer. Everyone knows that — except for insurance companies.”

Continue Reading Hunton Insurance Recovery Practice Head Explains Why Medidata Decision Affirming Phishing Coverage is “Common Sense”

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance recovery partners, Lorelie Masters and Lawrence J. Bracken II, received rankings in the 2018 Chambers and Partners USA attorney rankings.  Lorie received “Band 1” recognition in the Policyholder Insurance category for the District of Columbia and a “Band 2” recognition in the Dispute Resolution: Policyholder Insurance category for the Nationwide regions, while Larry received “Band 4” recognition in the General Commercial Litigation category among Georgia attorneys.  Both designations are the product of the outstanding results Lorie and Larry have achieved in their respective fields, and are indicative of the level of expertise both bring to the insurance recovery practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP.

Continue Reading Hunton Insurance Partners Ranked by Chambers USA

Super Lawyers, a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas, has named Hunton Insurance Partner Lorie Masters on its Washington, DC 2018 Top 100 and Top 50 Women’s lists. Super Lawyers’ competitive selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The list recognizes attorneys who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Congratulations Lorie!

To follow up on our post last week recapping a recent Ninth Circuit decision regarding coverage for losses from a social engineering scheme, federal appellate courts continue to examine the coverage available for such losses. As Law360 highlighted, and as we previously reported (here, here, here, and here), appeals are pending in the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh circuits. These cases, some of which involve lower court findings of coverage while others do not, show that coverage for social engineering scams remains hotly contested, which means policyholders must carefully consider such coverage when purchasing insurance. While more and more insurers have introduced endorsements designed to specifically address social engineering schemes, as Hunton attorney Patrick McDermott recently pointed out in a separate Law360 piece, one issue policyholders ought to consider is “whether an endorsement providing coverage for losses resulting from social engineering schemes actually narrows the coverage available for those losses.”

A New York appellate court ruled recently in Hanover Insurance Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121 (1st Dep’t March 27, 2018), that an insurance policy did not cover an additional named insured over a personal-injury lawsuit arising from its alleged negligence because coverage was limited only to injuries caused by the named insured.  This decision again underscores, as we advised in a recent Blog Post addressing JP Energy Marketing LLC v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Co. (which can be found here), the importance of carefully evaluating the wording of “additional insured” provisions, which can vary widely in scope and effect.

Continue Reading Wording of Additional-Insured Provisions Makes All The Difference

The Daily Business Review, an ALM publication covering the south Florida business community, has named Hunton’s Insurance practice head, Walter Andrews, as a recipient of its 2018 Professional Excellence Award.   The award recognizes exemplary work by attorneys in the legal profession and community.  The award is a precursor to an event hosted by the Daily Business Review on May 30 at the Rusty Pelican in Miami, where one of this year’s three Professional Excellence Award winners will be named Attorney of the Year.  Congratulations, and good luck Walter!