HNRK Coverage Corner

On July 13, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in Continental Casualty Co. v. Winder Laboratories, LLC, Case No. 21-11758, resolving an issue of first impression under Georgia law—whether an insurer can recoup defense costs it paid under a duty to defend policy upon a finding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify the insured.  The Court ruled that such recoupment is not permitted unless the policy expressly provides for it, explaining:   

As an initial matter, we disagree with the insurers’ argument that there is a clear “majority” rule favoring recoupment across ...

On June 13, 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Fire-Dex, LLC, Case No. 22-3922, affirming a district court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction over an insurer’s declaratory judgment action on the ground that the action turned on a “novel issue of Ohio insurance law” that should be resolved by the Ohio state courts.

At issue in Fire-Dex was whether illnesses arising from exposure to PFAS—so-called “forever chemicals”—in a manufacturer’s finished products constitute an “occupational disease” under Ohio law.  The Sixth ...

On May 23, 2023, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn issued an order in In re: SVB Financial Group, Case No. 23-10367(MG), lifting an automatic stay to permit Silicon Valley Bank’s D&O insurers to advance to defense costs to the bank’s officers in connection with litigation arising from the bank’s collapse.

A typical D&O policy offers coverage both to the corporation and to its officers and directors.  SVB D&O insurance program consists of 16 so-called “ABC Policies”, which provides three categories of coverage: (1) “Side A” coverage goes directly to directors and ...

On May 10, 2023, Judge Komitee of the EDNY issued a decision in Huang & Assocs., P.C. v. Hanover Ins. Co., Case No. 21-CV-4909(EK)(RER), holding that a law firm (Huang & Associates) was not entitled to coverage under its professional malpractice policy, for a negligence claim brought by a client whose funds were misappropriated by a third-party in a “real-estate transaction that went badly.”

The firm’s policy had an exclusion for any claim “[b]ased upon or arising out of, or relating directly or indirectly to . . . [a]ny actual or alleged conversion, commingling, defalcation ...

On May 1, 2023, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, issued a decision in a closely-watched cyber insurance case, Merck & Co, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., Appellate Division Docket No. A-1889-21, A-1882-21. (I spoke to Law360 about the case in January.)  Affirming the trial court’s ruling in favor of the policyholder, the appellate court held that an exclusion in an all-risk insurance property insurance policy for damages arising from “hostile or warlike action” by a “government  or sovereign power” did not apply to a cyberattack on a private company ...