In an article that first appeared in Electric Light & Power, Hunton & Williams attorneys Sergio F. Oehninger and Paul T. Moura discuss the growing Electric Vehicle (EV) industry and the risks posed due to the consequential strain on the power grid. As they explain, demand and investment in EVs will likely spur greater demand for supercharging stations that consume significant amounts of electricity. Urban centers and real estate owners are also expected to increase the supply of these stations in order to make these areas more attractive and accessible to EV owners, drone operators, and autonomous vehicle fleets. All of this growth will put increasing demands on electricity supply that can be difficult for businesses to control, leading to grid outages that can cause an interruption in business operations, an inability to access or restore system data, and significant losses of business income. All of this raises the question—Can businesses count on their insurance coverage to respond to the risks posed by EVs?
In football as in life, the best defense is often a good offense. But, that adage does not always play well in litigation. In Riddell, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B275482, 2017 WL 3614305 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017), the California Court of Appeal blew the whistle on such a tactic, holding that an insurer could not use discovery tools in a coverage dispute with its policyholder in order to prejudice the policyholder’s defense in an underlying lawsuit.
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.
Hunton and Williams LLP has published its 2016 Retail Industry Year in Review. The Review discusses the key legal and regulatory developments that affected the retail industry last year. In the Review, Hunton insurance coverage attorneys Syed Ahmad, Mike Levine and Jenn White discuss the lessons learned from insurance coverage cases that promise to have a lasting impact on retail cyber security and product contamination insurance. As they explain, “Last year’s decisions are critical reminders that having the right insurance is key, and even unintentional missteps can jeopardize coverage.” Read their commentary here.
On October 27, 2016, my colleague, Michael S. Levine, was quoted in Business Insurance concerning the recent decision in Camp’s Grocery Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., which he and I discussed on October 26, 2016 on the Hunton & Williams LLP Insurance Recovery Blog. In Camp’s, the court refused to find coverage under legacy property and liability policies for third-party liabilities arising from the hacking of a point-of-sale network and the resulting breach of bank card and other data. Mike’s comments on the risk of relying on legacy coverage for cyber protection and the increasing need to identify gaps between forms that purport to address potential cyber liabilities. If you have questions about the case, or about your cyber coverage, contact Mike or any member of our or Insurance Coverage Counseling and Litigation team for more information.