A primary insurer has a duty of good faith to an excess insurer to attempt to negotiate a settlement with a third-party claimant within the primary insurer’s limits. However, determining whether that duty of good faith was...more
Intel has unveiled plans to spend $20 billion to build two new chip manufacturing factories near existing facilities in Arizona—a “surprise bet that could please government officials worried about component shortages and...more
The NFL has scored a new media deal spread across outlets from CBS, NBC, and Fox to ESPN and Amazon worth nearly $110 billion over 11 years, “nearly doubling the value of its previous contracts” and “cement[ing]” the league’s...more
It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have...more
After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v....more
The US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) previously declined to centralize all coronavirus (COVID-19)-related business interruption insurance lawsuits, but left open the possibility of certain...more
The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has rejected efforts to centralize pretrial proceedings in actions in Pennsylvania and Illinois seeking insurance coverage for business interruption losses resulting from COVID-19. The...more
The Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declines petitions for an industry-wide MDL, but will consider four insurer-specific MDLs. In declining the petitions for an industry-wide MDL, the panel concluded that the...more
The background of this case in California federal court is that The Hartford (“Hartford”) issued reinsurance billings to Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (“Wausau”) for settlement payments made to one insured under...more
In this age of exponentially increasing technology, we can rely on one certainty in property casualty jurisprudence – that is, bold policyholder assertions supported by even bolder “expert” opinions. In BF Advance, LLC v....more
Pritchett Controls, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192182, 2017 WL 5591872 (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2017) - James W. Ancel, Inc. (“JWA”) was the prime contractor on a project for the Maryland...more
Breakingviews on Broadcom’s threat to Qualcomm’s board in the form of a slate of 11 director nominees for the company it has, so far, unsuccessfully attempted to purchase....more
In Hartford Accident and Indemnity v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance et al., the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a District Court’s decision refusing to vacate its prior judgments even though vacatur was a condition of...more
An employee benefit plan that includes an alleged subsidization component for its basic and supplemental options is neither prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) nor a violation of the plan...more
Just how much do you trust big companies, including the one you work for, with your health information? That issue may become increasingly important as employers campaign to help themselves and their employees by banding...more
Asset purchase and sale transactions are a preferred structure for many corporate deals. For a variety of reasons, it may be prudent for businesses or product lines to be transferred through these transactions, and an asset...more
Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California changed the law governing anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies. Twelve years ago, in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, No. S205889, 2015 WL4938295 (Cal. 2015), that an insurer is precluded from refusing to honor an insured’s assignment of rights for past losses...more
In a unanimous decision that will have a serious impact on long-tail exposures, the California Supreme Court in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Hartford Acc. & Indem.) has determined that policyholders may transfer liability...more
In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court on August 20, 2015 in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the court removed a significant obstacle facing companies that want to assign their interests in a...more
On August 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange Co. and held that California Insurance Code section 520 – a statute tracing back to 1872 – dictates “a...more
This morning the California Supreme Court announced the thoroughly sensible ruling that a corporation may transfer its rights under liability insurance policies without obtaining the consent of the insurance company. Fluor...more
On May 5, the California Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that has the potential to profoundly change the relationship between the insurer, its insured and the insured’s independent defense counsel under Civil Code...more
Advertising injury liability coverage offered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies is aimed at protecting companies against claims, often brought by competitors, alleging harm by purportedly derogatory...more