Specialty Lines

Expert Analysis

• Insureds' Notice Pleading May Be Insufficient In Federal Court

  

  A recent New Jersey federal court ruling in Bauman v. Hanover Insurance held that bare-bones notice pleading was insufficient and dismissed the policyholder's coverage complaint, a reminder that courts may require more than an expression of general disagreement with an insurance company's denial letter to proceed with the case, says Eugene Killian at The Killian Firm.

• 5th Circ. Offers Expert Opinion Guidance For Insurance Cases

  

  A recent Fifth Circuit decision in Majestic Oil v. Lloyd's of London provides insight into how Texas' concurrent causation doctrine could affect insurance cases where the cause of damage is at issue, and raises considerations for litigants faced with new or revised expert reports after the deadline has passed, say Brian Scarbrough and Cianan Lesley at Jenner & Block.

• DUI Liability Ruling Affirms SC Isn't Direct Action-Friendly

  

  The Supreme Court of South Carolina's recent decision in Denson v. National Casualty not only clarifies the state's jurisprudence surrounding private rights of action and negligence per se, but also tacitly reinforces that South Carolina is not a direct-action state, say Anna Cathcart and Turner Albernaz at Phelps Dunbar.

• Employment-Related Litigation Risks Facing Hospitality Cos.

  

  A close look at recent hospitality industry employment claims highlights key issues companies should keep an eye out for, and insurance policy considerations for managing risk related to wage and hour, privacy, and human trafficking claims, say Jan Larson and Huiyi Chen at Jenner & Block.

• A Look At Florida's Aggressively Pro-Insurer Tort Reform

  

  Florida's new tort reform law is an unwarranted gift to insurance companies that seeks to strip policyholders of key rights while doing little to curb excessive litigation, say Garrett Nemeroff and Hugh Lumpkin at Reed Smith.

• Navigating High Court's Options In Insurer Choice Of Law

  

  Depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court approaches the question of when insurers may invoke choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts to dodge state-specific liability, the Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty decision may mean significant changes not only for admiralty law disputes, but for the insurance industry more broadly, say Lara Cassidy and Adriana Perez at Hunton.

• Practical Tips For Managing Bank D&O Liability Risk

  

  With the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank potentially inspiring regulators to increase scrutiny of management at similar institutions, banking directors and officers should mitigate personal liability risks through keen attention to sound banking practices and regulators' announced priorities, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

• Establishing A Record Of Good Faith In Mediation

  

  Viacom v. U.S. Specialty Insurance, and other recent cases, highlight the developing criteria for determining good faith participation in mediation, as well as several practical tips to establish such a record, says Richard Mason at MasonADR.

• Using ChatGPT To Handle Insurance Claims Is A Risky Move

  

  ChatGPT gets some insurance law questions surprisingly wrong, and while it handles broader coverage concepts significantly better, using it to assist with coverage questions will likely lead to erroneous results and could leave insurers liable for bad faith, says Randy Maniloff at White and Williams.

• Del. Ruling Could Affect D&O Claims Beyond SPACs

  

  A Delaware state court recently held in Clover Health v. Berkley Insurance that directors and officers of a post-merger entity were insured persons under a special-purpose acquisition company's D&O policy, a ruling that could have potential ramifications for future D&O claims in Delaware outside of SPAC deals, say Geoffrey Fehling and Janine Hanrahan at Hunton.

• A Missing Issue In 'Blank Space' Insurance Ruling

  

  As Norwegian Hull Club v. North Star heads to trial in Florida federal court, the most interesting part of the court opinion denying summary judgment is the argument it doesn't address — contra proferentem, which could have been used to resolve the case's blank space ambiguity in the policyholder's favor, say Jeffrey Mikoni and Scott Greenspan at Pillsbury.

• High Court Ax Of Atty-Client Privilege Case Deepens Split

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent dismissal of In re: Grand Jury as improvidently granted maintains a three-way circuit split on the application of attorney-client privilege to multipurpose communications, although the justices have at least shown a desire to address it, say Trey Bourn and Thomas DiStanislao at Butler Snow.

• The Wide Oversight Implications Of Del. McDonald's Ruling

  

  The Delaware Chancery Court's recent ruling that a McDonald's officer had oversight obligations on par with directors has wide-reaching implications for Delaware corporate law, including precedent for the court to hear sexual harassment claims, say attorneys at Fried Frank.