Imagine you hired a general contractor to renovate the master bathroom of your home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to do the plumbing work, but the subcontractor botched the job, resulting in a massive leak causing extensive damage to other areas of your home and valuable personal property. You demand full compensation for the loss, but unfortunately the contractors you hired had no assets besides their comprehensive general liability insurance policies. Will those insurance…

Risk and Recovery

Insurance Coverage in the Post-Weinstein Era

By Seth Schafler

December 14, 2017

With new headlines involving sexual harassment and other inappropriate sexual conduct continuing to emerge on a daily basis, insurance coverage for claims that might emerge is something every company should consider. Recently, media reports have discussed settlements of shareholder derivative claims against members of the boards of directors and other senior executives of public companies. These settlements illustrate both the type of corporate liability that can ensue from allegations that a company turned a blind eye to, or otherwise failed to prevent,…

Risk and Recovery

Five Ways to Prepare for Business Interruption and Property Damage Insurance Claims in a Natural Disaster

By Marc Eric Rosenthal

August 28, 2017

https-insuranceriskrecovery-proskauerroseblogs-com-wp-content-uploads-sites-27-2017-08-hurricane-2-300x200-jpg

The extraordinary images and reports of the devastation from Hurricane Harvey have filled the news outlets. While the focus remains on the human toll and concern for the well-being of friends, colleagues and business partners who may be personally affected by this disaster, its impact will extend far beyond those whose lives and businesses were immediately disrupted. In the coming days, we will begin to see assessments of the disaster’s impact on businesses from Texas,…

Risk and Recovery

Another State Court Limits the Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses

By Ronald A. Valenzuela & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

September 14, 2015

We recently wrote about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court to limit the enforceability of clauses in third party liability insurance policies that prohibit the policyholder from assigning its interests in the policy without the insurer’s prior consent. The court held that these so-called anti-assignment clauses are not enforceable after a third party has suffered personal injury or property damage covered under the policy and for which the insured may…

Risk and Recovery

Seventh Circuit Issues Stern Warning For Insurers That Reject Their Duty to Defend

By Bradley J. Lorden & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

August 25, 2015

The first line of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion says it all: “This case provides a warning for insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds.” As the court’s admonishment suggests, insurers that improperly refuse to defend an insured do so at their own risk and – if not done through a reservation of rights or a declaratory judgment action – may waive their coverage defenses in the process.…

Risk and Recovery

California Supreme Court Limits Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses

By Ronald A. Valenzuela & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

August 21, 2015

In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the court removed a significant obstacle facing companies that want to assign their interests in a third party insurance policy to a successor company as part of a corporate restructuring or sale. It held that an anti-assignment clause in liability policies prohibiting an insured from assigning its interests under the policy without the insurer’s consent is…

Risk and Recovery

Georgia Supreme Court Complicates Policyholders’ Ability to Settle Claims Brought Against Them

By Ronald A. Valenzuela & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

August 12, 2015

As we previously reported here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked the Georgia Supreme Court to weigh in on the coverage dispute in Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co. concerning consent-to-settle and no-action provisions in an excess insurance policy. The state high court’s answer was a disappointing one for policyholders. According to the court, if a policyholder settles a claim brought against it without first obtaining…

Risk and Recovery

Texas Says EPA Administrative Actions under CERCLA Trigger Duty to Defend

By Shawn S. Ledingham Jr. & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

August 6, 2015

As any company facing EPA administrative action under CERCLA knows, the financial risk and defense costs associated with those proceedings can be the same as the risk and costs of an EPA lawsuit under CERCLA. But insurers have argued that administrative actions are very different from suits under standard CGL policies. Those policies, insurers argue, provide defense coverage to costs related to “suits,” not administrative actions. Joining a clear majority of state courts, the Texas…

Risk and Recovery

Third Circuit Finds Insured v. Insured Exclusion Precludes Recovery of Defense Costs

By Jacki L. Anderson & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

August 3, 2015

Many corporate executives may be under the impression that the defense costs they incur when sued for actions taken in their role as officers of the company would be covered by a “Management Protection” insurance policy. The name of the insurance policy even suggests this. However, executives are not always covered by such a policy. For example, in Redmond v. Ace American Insurance Company, No. 14-3864, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9392 (3d Cir. June…

Risk and Recovery

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That Insured May Settle Tort Claim Without Insurer Consent Under “Fair and Reasonable” Standard

By Matthew J. Morris & Proskauer Labor and Employment Department

July 29, 2015

In Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. American Nuclear Insurers, a divided Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, deciding an issue of first impression under Pennsylvania law, recently held that when an insurer defends its insured subject to a reservation of rights, the insured may accept a settlement over the insurer’s refusal where the settlement is fair, reasonable, and non-collusive. This is a significant statement of policyholder rights in an area that regularly generates litigation.…

Risk and Recovery

Legal Insights for the Insured

Blog Authors

New York Insurance Law: Under Construction

Insurance Coverage in the Post-Weinstein Era

Five Ways to Prepare for Business Interruption and Property Damage Insurance Claims in a Natural Disaster

Another State Court Limits the Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses

Seventh Circuit Issues Stern Warning For Insurers That Reject Their Duty to Defend

California Supreme Court Limits Enforceability of Anti-Assignment Clauses

Georgia Supreme Court Complicates Policyholders’ Ability to Settle Claims Brought Against Them

Texas Says EPA Administrative Actions under CERCLA Trigger Duty to Defend

Third Circuit Finds Insured v. Insured Exclusion Precludes Recovery of Defense Costs

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That Insured May Settle Tort Claim Without Insurer Consent Under “Fair and Reasonable” Standard

Stay Connected

Company

Products

Support

New to the Network