Consulting firm Ernst & Young recently announced that it is collaborating with Microsoft, data security firm Guardtime, and shipping and logistics conglomerate Maersk to create a marine insurance platform based on blockchain technology. The companies anticipate that their blockchain-based product—to be implemented globally beginning in early 2018—will connect clients, brokers, insurers, and third parties to “distributed common ledgers that capture data about identities, risk and exposures” and integrate this information with insurance contracts. The platform’s capabilities include: “the ability to create and maintain asset data from multiple parties; to link data to policy contracts; to receive and act upon information that results in a pricing or a business process change; to connect client assets, transactions and payments; and to capture and validate up-to-date first notification or loss data.”
The National Hurricane Center calls Hurricane Irma a “potentially catastrophic Category 5 Hurricane.” As the state of Florida begins evacuation procedures, Miami-based Hunton Insurance lawyers Walter Andrews and Andrea DeField provide commentary and analysis to the Daily Business Review on steps that South Florida insureds should take now in preparation for the impending storm. These include ensuring coverage for both windstorm and flood damage, as well as considering these often standard coverages in light of anticipated claims post-storm:
In MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:16-ap-01251 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ordered MF Global Holdings Ltd. and Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. to arbitrate their $15 million errors-and-omissions coverage dispute in Hamilton, Bermuda. MF Global initiated an adversary proceeding against Allied World in the bankruptcy court after Allied World had refused to pay MF Global for amounts that MF Global returned to its customers’ accounts as part of a settlement of claims against MF Global’s former managers and directors. Allied World denied coverage under its “Bermuda Form” errors-and-omissions policy, claiming that this procedure was tantamount to deposit insurance, and not professional liability insurance, which is what errors-and-omissions coverage typically provides., No. 1:16-ap-01251 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ordered MF Global Holdings Ltd. and Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. to arbitrate their $15 million errors-and-omissions coverage dispute in Hamilton, Bermuda. MF Global initiated an adversary proceeding against Allied World in the bankruptcy court after Allied World had refused to pay MF Global for amounts that MF Global returned to its customers’ accounts as part of a settlement of claims against MF Global’s former managers and directors. Allied World denied coverage under its “Bermuda Form” errors-and-omissions policy, claiming that this procedure was tantamount to deposit insurance, and not professional liability insurance, which is what errors-and-omissions coverage typically provides.
Hunton & Williams Insurance Recovery partner, Michael Levine, was quoted in an August 29, 2017 article appearing in Business Insurance, regarding the rapid increase in lawsuits, and insurance issues, surrounding concussions in high school and college sports. Among other things, the article discusses a coverage lawsuit filed by Great American Assurance Company against Conference USA in federal court in Dallas, Texas. In the lawsuit, the insurer alleges that its policy did not afford coverage for football concussion injuries because the policy included a “limited event coverage endorsement,” which limited bodily injury coverage to a list of sports that apparently did not include football. As Mr. Levine noted, the use of policy endorsements to limit coverage for bodily injury claims to those arising in some sports, but not when they arise in football – where injuries are most likely to occur – is troubling. Football is where the coverage is needed most; yet the insurer apparently removed it using a policy endorsement that purports to afford coverage, not restrict it. As Mr. Levine notes, cases like this underscore the need for policyholders to carefully review all policy endorsements to ensure that the policy when read as a whole actually provides the coverages that are needed the most.
It has been almost a week since Hurricane Harvey came barreling down the Texas coastline as a Category-4 storm. Since that time, parts of Texas and Louisiana have been inundated with flood waters as Harvey continues to wreak havoc. Despite the fact that many of those affected have been unable to reach their homes or business to fully assess the damage because of road closures and flood waters, insureds whose businesses or homes were in the storm’s path should notify their insurers in writing now. The initial written notice should include the following information:
- Name and contact information for the insured;
- The location of the loss;
- The date and time of the loss (to the extent known); and
- A brief description of the loss.
In a prior blog post, we discussed Kanye West’s touring company’s, Very Good Touring, Inc. (“Very Good”), lawsuit against its insurer, Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”), for withholding almost $10 million in coverage after the cancellation of shows on West’s “Life of Pablo” Tour. On Tuesday, August 29, 2017, Lloyd’s responded by counterclaiming against Very Good and West, alleging that the loss was due to their failure to abide by policy conditions.
On August 29, 2017, my colleagues Lawrence J. Bracken, Michael Levine, and Geoffrey Fehling published an article in Law360 discussing the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision rejecting coverage for the Los Angeles Lakers’ director’s and officer’s (D&O) insurance claim arising from a fan’s class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), based on a broadly-worded invasion of privacy exclusion in the Lakers’ D&O insurance policy. A split Ninth Circuit panel held that “[b]ecause a TCPA claim is inherently an invasion of privacy claim, [the insurer] correctly concluded that [the claimant]’s TCPA claims fell under the Policy’s broad exclusionary clause.” The full article is available here.
In this coverage dispute, Coca-Cola claims that its insurers wrongfully refused to reimburse nearly $1 million in business interruption losses it suffered at two bottling plants in Nepal resulting from a blockade of the Nepal-India border.
From disaster preparedness and workplace safety to autonomous deliveries and performance arts, companies worldwide increasingly rely on drones as a natural extension of their business. Recent Federal Aviation Administration forecasts predict that nearly 4 million drones—over 420,000 of which will be used for commercial operations—will be operating in the U.S. by the year 2021.
On August 22, 2017, a Texas state appellate court panel dismissed a Mexican candy and peanut manufacturer’s coverage action against its Mexican insurer and insurance broker due to lack of personal jurisdiction. See Seguros Afirme, S.A. de C.V. v. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., et al., No. 05-16-01465-CV (Tex. Ct. App. filed Aug. 22, 2017); Cooper Gay Martinez Del Rio y Asociados Intermediarios de Reaseguro S.A. de C.V. v. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., et al., No. 05-16-01436-CV (Tex. Ct. App. filed Aug. 22, 2017).