The excess and surplus lines market is a market that functions with limited regulation. Most states have surplus lines laws that require surplus lines brokers to report their policies to state stamping offices to monitor the surplus lines business and collect taxes. The stamping offices are funded by stamping fees paid by the brokers based on a percentage of the policy premium. Surplus lines brokers are required by most state insurance laws to pay those fees to the stamping offices. But what if they don’t? Can the stamping office sue to collect the fees? The New York Court of Appeals just answered this question under New York law.
Confidentiality agreements in reinsurance arbitrations are ubiquitous, but often cause concern when a subsequent arbitration arises over the same or similar contracts with the same or similar parties. A question that has arisen with some frequency, but which has not been fully addressed in court, is whether the confidentiality agreement in the first arbitration precludes the parties or the panel in the second arbitration from obtaining or even discussing evidence from the first arbitration, which is or may be directly relevant to the issues in the second arbitration.
A typical directors and officers liability insurance policy provides coverage for officers and directors of a corporation for all loss that is not indemnified by the corporation resulting from a covered claim for a wrongful act as defined by the policy. Virtually all D&O policies also include an “Insured v. Insured Exclusion,” which precludes coverage for claims brought by or on behalf of or at the direction of any of the insureds (with some exceptions). One of the reasons for this exclusion is to prevent collusion between the company and an officer or director.
In a recent case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court had occasion to address the application of the Insured v. Insured Exclusion.
A recent case from a New York intermediate appeals court sheds some light on how the courts interpret property and business interruption coverage for power-generating equipment. The case raised two interesting issues. First, whether a pre-existing crack in a power-generating turbine precludes coverage. The second, whether time-element coverage was available for a loss of future capacity revenues. Insuring large power-generating equipment is a serious risk, especially when the equipment is not new. Underwriters and claims examiners involved in property risks for utilities and other industrial equipment may find this case instructive.
We have written a number of blog posts involving New York Insurance Law Section 3420(d)(2), which requires insurance companies to disclaim quickly or waive the right to disclaim. Parties have tried to rely on 3420(d)(2) in a variety of ways. In a recent case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to address the application of 3420(d)(2) in an action brought by one insurance company against another. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant carrier and declined to apply 3420(d)(2) to the case. The Second Circuit affirmed.
When a worker is injured on a construction job and sues the relevant parties, a side battle often ensues over which carrier has the duty to defend and indemnify the owner, general contractor or subcontractor based on the language in the various construction contracts requiring some or all of those parties to be named as additional insureds. When there are multiple subcontracts cascading down to the injured worker’s employer, determining whether the employer’s policy must defend and indemnify other parties as additional insureds can be confusing. In a recent Summary Order, which does not have precedential effect, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on this issue under New York law.
With the signing of the Bilateral Agreement on Prudential Insurance and Reinsurance Measures (the “Covered Agreement“), the EU and US have embarked on a five-year road towards cooperation on insurance and reinsurance competition, supervision and regulation. While the main purpose of the Covered Agreement was leveling the playing field for international reinsurers and agreeing on cooperation and information exchanges in supervising insurers and reinsurers, especially those active in both the US and the EU, there are aspects of the Covered Agreement that have a potential effect on reinsurance disputes.
The European Union and the United States have today signed their pending Bilateral Agreement on Prudential Insurance and Reinsurance Measures. In the US, the Agreement is the Covered Agreement under the Dodd-Frank Act; in the EU, it is an Agreement under Article 218 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The language of the Agreement was finalized and submitted to the United States Congress in January 2017.
Recently on our eSquire Global Crossings Blog we shared an article first published in the Bankruptcy Strategist, where Norman Kinel and Elliot Smith explore the practical impact of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Indian Harbor Insurance Company v. Zucker, et al., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10821, which bankruptcy practitioners – particularly those representing creditors’ committees – need to consider, because having the wrong plaintiff or the wrong mechanism in place to pursue claims against a debtor’s officers and directors could result in losing the ability to recover value for creditors.
You can read the full article online here.
Other aspects of the Zucker case were previously examined by Christopher Meyer in his post ‘“Insured Versus Insured” – – Who is the Debtor-in-Possession, Anyway’.
On September 4, 2017, Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, declared a state of emergency in every county in Florida in anticipation of Hurricane Irma, through Executive Order No. 17-235, triggering Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier’s related emergency authority. Fla. Stat. § 252.63(1). On September 13, 2017, Commissioner Altmaier issued the Office of Insurance Regulation’s (the “Office”) Emergency Order establishing and amending certain rules for insurance companies post Hurricane Irma.
The Emergency Order applies to insurers and other entities regulated under the Florida Insurance Code. It institutes temporary rules regarding cancelling or nonrenewing residential and commercial residential policies; temporary rules regarding rate filings, the “file and use” rate filing processes, and the “use and file” rate filing processes; new rules on time periods for action by insureds; and detailed notice and cancellation requirements for premium finance companies.