Tag Archives: Brittany M. Davidson

Digital Due Diligence: Hunton Attorneys Discuss Four Critical Questions To Ask When Evaluating Cyber Insurance Coverage

Cyber and crime insurance policies have been heavily recommended to address the growing prevalence and types of cyber risks. My colleagues Walter Andrews and Jennifer White recently authored an article appearing in Risk Management discussing how the purchase of cyber and crime insurance policies alone is not enough to successfully manage these risks. These policies … Continue Reading

Hunton Attorney Jennifer E. White Comments On Big Implications Of Long-Tail Claim Decision

On January 27, my colleague, Jennifer White, was quoted in Business Insurance concerning the recent decision in E.M. Sergeant Pulp & Chemical Company, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, which she and attorney Brittany Davidson discussed last week on Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Blog.  In that case, a federal district court allowed a chemical company to … Continue Reading

“Scanty” Evidence, Big Implications For Court’s Denial Of Insurer’s Summary Judgment Motion

Last Thursday, a federal district judge in New Jersey denied, in part, Travelers Indemnity Company’s (Travelers) motion for summary judgment on claims for indemnity costs because the plaintiff, E.M. Sergeant Pulp & Chemical Company (EMS), provided sufficient evidence to raise triable questions of fact. Although the evidence was just “barely sufficient” to keep the case … Continue Reading

Insured Can’t Run From Arbitration For Damaged Adidas Products

On December 20, 2016, a New York federal district court granted a petition to compel arbitration, filed by Zurich Insurance Co.’s (“Zurich”), as a subrogee of Adidas Group (“Adidas”), against Crowley Latin America Services LLC (“Crowley”), a transportation and logistics company. The underlying dispute involves losses from a fire-damaged shipment of Adidas clothing.  The Court … Continue Reading

Possibility That Claim Sounds In Negligence Is Enough To Circumvent Liability Policy’s “Contract” Exclusion

On December 6, 2016, a Connecticut appellate court held that a contract exclusion in a public entity errors and omissions liability insurance policy did not relieve the insurer’s duty to defend when there was at least a possibility of coverage based on the allegations against the insured. The court reasoned that the fact finder could … Continue Reading

Case Finding Insurer Liable For $15 Million Settlement Underscores Impact Of Settlement Language On Coverage

On December 2, 2016, a Texas federal court ruled that the insurer for the predecessor of CVS Caremark Corp., Revco D.S. Inc. (Revco), must pay $15 million toward a $100 million settlement of a class action lawsuit for the injuries and deaths allegedly caused by a toxic vitamin solution, E-Ferol. Pursuant to the settlement, the … Continue Reading

Policy Endorsement Trumps Exclusion But Also Renders Policies Excess To Other Available Coverage

On November 2, 2016, a federal judge in California ruled that a Real Estate Property Managed endorsement in policies issued to a real estate manager negated a standard policy exclusion, but also rendered the policies excess to other available insurance. The case involved a dispute over coverage for a bodily injury claim involving “Pigeon Breeders … Continue Reading

Contractor Gets Boost From Amici Filings In Florida Suit Over Duty To Defend

On August 15, we wrote a blog post (which can be accessed here) about how the Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the issue of whether Florida’s pre-suit process in contractor cases, under Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” under CGL policy language, which would trigger the insurer’s duty to … Continue Reading

Metlife May Not Be “Too Big To Fail,” But Is It “Too Big To Handle” For State Insurance Regulators?

On March 31 and April 15, we wrote blog posts (which can be accessed here and here) about a D.C. federal judge’s decision to rescind MetLife’s systematically important financial institution (SIFI) status. On October 24, a D.C. Circuit three-judge panel heard oral argument of the appeal of that decision. The federal government advocated to reinstate … Continue Reading

Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Liability – DENIED

On September 22, 2016, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected an insurer’s attempt to separately relitigate issues of liability previously decided in an underlying lawsuit.  The decision in Fountaincourt Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Fountain Dev., LLC, 360 Or. 341 (2016), reaffirms the settled liability paradigm that “an insurer cannot, in a subsequent proceeding, retry its insured’s liability, … Continue Reading
LexBlog