On Monday, March 6, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear an insurance coverage dispute, Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. Insurance cases are few and far between in the high court, so both policyholders and their insurers will be watching the Great Lakes case with great interest. Notably, while the case involves the specialized area of maritime law, how the Supreme Court chooses to address the choice-of-law issue it presents could have much broader implications.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Takes on Insurance Dispute
Lara Degenhart Cassidy
Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments
Posted in Insurance Fundamentals
The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed insurance coverage for a South Carolina policyholder based on the “axiomatic principle” that an insurer which fails to fully and fairly articulate its potential coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter loses the right to contest coverage on those grounds. Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owner’s Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 19-2009, 2022 WL 17592121 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)). More particularly, in Stoneledge, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam a South Carolina District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that had successfully sued its general contractors for construction defects and was seeking to recover the damages owed from the contractors’ insurers. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the insurers’ vague reservation of rights letters failed to reserve the defenses on which the insurers purported to deny coverage. …
Continue Reading Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments
Harvard Learns Lesson About Timely Notice
Posted in Notice
While Harvard prepares to defend its admissions policies to the Supreme Court, one of its insurers continues to argue that a technicality prevents Harvard from recovering $15 million to defray its defense costs under its insurance policies.
Last month, we discussed an insurance coverage dispute between Harvard College and Zurich American Insurance Company. The dispute arises from Zurich’s refusal to cover a 2014 lawsuit that an affirmative-action group filed against Harvard, alleging that the university’s admissions policies violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Since the affirmative action suit was filed, Harvard has been defending its admissions policies through the trial and appellate court systems, an effort that has cost the university more than $25 million.…
Key Takeaways From OFAC’s Recent Guidance: Carefully Scrutinize Insurance Coverage And Respond To Cyber Incidents With The Assistance of Experienced Advisors
By Lara Degenhart Cassidy & Sima Kazmir on
Posted in Cyber
On September 21, 2021 and October 15, 2021, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued reminders of the sanctions risks for facilitating ransom payments to designated malicious cyber actors. As discussed in our prior blogpost on OFAC’s October 1, 2020 advisory, OFAC has made clear that it is increasingly willing to bring enforcement actions against entities, including cyber insurers, that facilitate payments to sanctioned threat actors on behalf of corporate victims.
Continue Reading Key Takeaways From OFAC’s Recent Guidance: Carefully Scrutinize Insurance Coverage And Respond To Cyber Incidents With The Assistance of Experienced Advisors