On this episode of “Don’t Take No for An Answer,” Lynda A. Bennett, Chair of Lowenstein’s Insurance Recovery Group, speaks with David Anderson, Vice President of Cyber at Woodruff Sawyer, about the difference between operational technology (OT) and informational technology (IT). They discuss how system failures or cyber-attacks on a company’s OT system may not only give rise to risks to data security, but also may have real world consequences, from business interruption and wasted inventory to physical injury and environmental damage. Lynda and David stress the need for policyholders to carefully understand and negotiate their cyber insurance coverage to cover all potential OT impacts—preferably at the purchase phase, and not after a failure has occurred.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
David Anderson, CIPP/US, Vice President, Cyber Liability, Woodruff-Sawyer & Co

Today on Don't Take No For An Answer, Lynda A. Bennett and Alexander B. Corson discuss a recent Second Circuit decision that reinforces the importance of reading claims-made policies carefully. The case involves Tinder, the online dating service provider, which received notice of a lawsuit on Wednesday but did not provide notice to their insurer until Monday. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insurance policy had expired on Saturday at 12:01 AM! Their discussion focuses on such issues as what constitutes a “claim” triggering notice requirements in claims-made policies, the scope of a 60-day grace period applicable to such notice requirements, how policy audits may help companies avoid similar situations, and why it is critical for business to provide notice to their insurers early, often, and immediately upon learning of a potential liability.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery

Today on “Don’t Take No for an Answer,” Eric Jesse and Alexander B. Corson discuss Aearo Technologies v. ACE American, in which a Delaware court held 3M could not credit $372 million it paid in defense costs against self-insured retentions in legacy CGL policies issued to its subsidiary, Aero Technologies, before its aquisition. The hosts discuss the implications of non-market language included in those policies – which specified that the self-insured retention could not be satisfied by payments made on Aearo’s behalf – and steps the insured might have taken to avoid this hyper-technical coverage defense that seemingly ignored the reality of corporate structuring and would have required 3M to engage in the “pointless formality” of transferring money to an Aearo bank account in order to satisfy its self-insured retentions.

Speakers:

Eric Jesse, Partner, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery

In this episode of “Don’t Take No for an Answer,” Lynda A. Bennett and Alexander B. Corson of Lowenstein’s Insurance Recovery Group examine a recent California Appellate Court decision that underscores the necessity of negotiating seamless and consistent insurance policies across all coverage lines, highlighting the implications of poorly defined terms and the critical importance of broad notice to avoid coverage gaps. They also explore practical steps to ensure your insurance program functions as a well-stitched patchwork quilt, covering all potential risks effectively.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery

Today on “Don't Take No for an Answer,” hosts Lynda A, Bennett and Eric Jesse discuss what they see as an increase in insurers acting in bad faith trying to avoid their coverage obligations, with more roadblocks, more requests for perfect information, and more entrenched positions than ever before, and insurers trying to abandon their insureds even when there is a meaningful settlement opportunity to resolve the underlying case. They explain the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the importance of choice of law, and how policyholders can protect themselves, particularly regarding the appointment and management of panel defense counsel, and in determining who has the ultimate authority to settle a case.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Eric Jesse, Partner, Insurance Recovery

Today, Lynda A. Bennett and Heather Weaver of Lowenstein’s Insurance Recovery Group sit down with Yelena Dunaevsky, Senior Vice President, Transactional Insurance, at Woodruff Sawyer to talk about the current state of SPAC related litigation and its impact on the insurance market. After a SPAC frenzy in 2020 which then slowed by 2022, SPACs appear to be popular again; Dunaevsky says these transactions still offer a good alternative to IPOs when conducted correctly, and that she expects a healthy market in the SPAC vehicle from now on. The lawyers also discuss the litigation that arose from the earlier SPACs craze, such as securities class actions and fiduciary duty cases in Delaware over issues such as misleading or fraudulent disclosures about a product, misrepresentation of revenue or growth, deceptive or fraudulent disclosures, and accounting issues. They all agree that D&O insurance is crucial for all entities involved to cover alleged wrongful acts occurring up until the closing, claims made during the time period following the transaction for wrongful acts that took place before the transaction closed, and go-forward coverage for the surviving entity; and they address a potentially helpful new structure called a combined policy for post-merge, which creates prior acts coverage for the D&Os of the original SPAC.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Heather Weaver, Counsel, Insurance Recovery
Yelena Dunaevsky, Esq. Senior Vice President, Transactional Insurance, Woodruff Sawyer

Today, hosts Lynda A. Bennett and Eric Jesse discuss a recent decision that addresses broker malpractice – a common claim for policyholders to pursue after learning insurance protection is unavailable or insufficient to cover claim. Although the Lowenstein partners call the opinion a situation where “bad facts making bad law,” they do advise policyholders to take away certain key lessons, including the need, and how to create a record to establish the existence of a special relationship with the broker which in turn imposes a fiduciary duty on the broker. Policyholders also should be responsive when brokers make inquiries designed to understand and value the risks that are intended to be insured not only to confirm the existence of a special relationship but also to avoid the need to sue the broker because the right coverage is placed in the first instance.

In this episode of "Don’t Take No for an Answer," Lynda A. Bennett and Alexander B. Corson explore the complex issue of "allocation" in the context of defense costs in insurance claims. They discuss what steps to take when insurers attempt to shift part of their coverage obligations onto policyholders in a reservation of rights (ROR) letter, the common law approach to allocation, and the implications of "allocation" provisions in policies. The conversation also addresses whether the allocation question changes when an insurer has a duty to reimburse versus a duty to defend.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery