Property

Expert Analysis

• JP Morgan Ruling May Have Broad Insurance Implications

  

  The New York Court of Appeals' recent decision in J.P. Morgan Securities v. Vigilant Insurance — that settlement funds paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did not constitute a penalty for insurance purposes — could have far-reaching application in other types of insurance litigation where plaintiffs could be characterized as seeking equitable relief, say Robert Shulman and Cristen Rose at Paley Rothman.

• Embracing ESG: PayPal CLO Talks Gauging Impact And Intent

  

  For legal teams, the corporate evolution toward more intentional post-COVID-19 environmental, social and governance strategies means deeper integration across business functions, seeking counsel on emerging issues affecting stakeholders, adapting initiatives around changing policies and regulations, and advancing ESG reports to better measure impact, says Louise Pentland at PayPal.

• 2 Insurance Rulings Showcase Trend Favoring Appraisal

  

  Two recent decisions from a Florida state court and the Tenth Circuit are consistent with the purpose of, and overwhelming judicial preference toward, appraisal as a means of property claim resolution, ensuring that policyholders have further support in employing this tool against a reluctant insurer, say Matthew Weaver and Jessica Gopiao at Reed Smith.

• COVID Insurance Cases Highlight Federal-State Court Tension

  

  COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation has resulted in an unprecedented number of federal courts preemptively ruling on an area of law in which state courts have final say — a problematic trend with likely undesirable results for litigants unless federal courts consider certain proactive solutions, says John Koch at Flaster Greenberg.

• Strike And Riot Insurance Considerations For Policyholders

  

  As civil unrest risks evolve, outpacing the insurance products designed to cover them, businesses relying on strike, riot and civil commotion coverage or commercial property coverage should review key aspects of their policies, say Jillian Raines and Shafkat Rakib at Cohen Ziffer.

• Texas Insurers' Paths To Post-Appraisal Summary Judgment

  

  Despite Texas insurance law changes that have altered the interaction between appraisal awards and certain extracontractual claims, recent state and federal court decisions show insurers still have options for summary judgment on policyholders' claims after the entry of an appraisal award, say Michael O'Brien and Claire Fialcowitz at Zelle.

• What To Include In Orders Governing Remote Arbitration

  

  When conducting remote arbitration, attorneys should negotiate written orders that spell out clear rules on technology accommodations, document handling, witness readiness and other key considerations to ensure parties' rights are protected and the neutral's time is not wasted, say Matthew Williams and Christina Sarchio at Dechert.

• Insurers Should Honor Astroworld Coverage Obligations

  

  While insurers may be eager to shift blame on Astroworld showrunner Travis Scott for conditions that resulted in 10 deaths and dozens of injuries, arguments suggesting the tragedy shouldn't be covered appear baseless in light of the facts and the law, says Benjamin Massarsky at Miller Friel.

• Revisiting Loss Calculations For Business Interruption Claims

  

  As business interruption insurance claims from COVID-19 and other recent catastrophes flood the courts, David Yohai and Heather Weaver at Weil examine two common judicial approaches to calculating losses, survey their outsize effect on an insured's recovery, and discuss how the influx of new decisions will change the landscape.

• The Hazards Of Female Lawyers Being 'Office Moms'

  

  Female attorneys are frequently credited with being the "office moms" who do critical but undervalued work — from bringing birthday cakes to serving on diversity committees — but as lawyers return to offices, now is a good time for employers to rectify the gender imbalance that disadvantages women, say Ninth Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown and Fine Kaplan partner Roberta Liebenberg.

• Ransomware Case Signifies Shift In Cyber Insurers' Stance

  

  The pleadings in a recently settled California federal court case, Boardriders v. Great American Insurance, show that cyber insurers are taking an adversarial approach to ransomware-related claims in the wake of increasing attacks, so policyholders should anticipate new policy language, claim-payment avoidance and more, say Lynda Bennett and Michael Scales at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Pa. Ruling Leaves Auto Policy Stacking Questions

  

  Following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent decision in Donovan v. State Farm, implicitly confirming the validity of a household vehicle auto policy exclusion with a proper inter-policy stacking waiver, it is unclear what the court expects insurers to do about stacking waivers, say Christopher Woodward and Allison Krupp at Marshall Dennehey.

• Cyber Rulings Aren't Helping COVID Biz Interruption Cases

  

  Where policyholders have recently tried to draw comparison between the loss of property use from a COVID-19 shutdown order and the loss of data use from a ransomware attack, they have found courts unsympathetic to these arguments for business interruption insurance coverage, say Jane Warring and Kristian Smith at Zelle.