Effective February 28, 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has promoted insurance recovery lawyer Kevin V. Small, along with three other attorneys, to Counsel. “Kevin quickly established himself as an integral part of our practice, particularly in the area of transactional liability insurance,” said practice head Syed Ahmad. Ahmad added, “Kevin recently led the drafting of a Lexis Practice Note on Representations and Warranties Insurance that will be published in the coming weeks and provides rare insights on common issues arising in the claims context.” “Kevin makes himself available to colleagues and clients alike whenever needed and works tirelessly to find creative solutions to complex insurance problems,” said former practice head Walter Andrews. Partner Mike Levine added, “Kevin’s promotion is well-deserved and a direct result of his hard work and service to our clients. I have no doubt his success will continue in his role as Counsel.”
Continue Reading Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Kevin V. Small to Counsel
Kevin V. Small
New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders
By Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small on
Posted in General Liability
The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here.…
Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court
By Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small on
Posted in Duty to Defend, General Liability
In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here.
…
Continue Reading Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court