The Policyholder Perspective

Updates & thoughts on the full range of insurance coverage issues affecting commercial policyholders

Latest from The Policyholder Perspective - Page 2

Review state cannabis regulations for insurance requirements

July 23, 2019

Like any business, a business operating in the U.S. cannabis industry needs both first-party and third-party liability insurance. Unlike other types of businesses, however, a cannabis-related business’ insurance needs may be dictated at least in part by state regulations. Although not every state that has legalized cannabis for medical and/or adult use has promulgated specific insurance requirements for this industry, a number of states, via their cannabis regulations, have done so. Accordingly, it is imperative…

The Policyholder Perspective

Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier for Assessing Insurance Coverage

By Emily Garrison, Andy Moss, Cristina Shea & Shruti Engstrom

June 6, 2019

U.S. and international businesses are accelerating their use of artificial intelligence (AI)[1] at an unprecedented rate. The second AI Index Report published in December 2018 by a Stanford University-led group concluded that “AI activity is increasing nearly everywhere and technological performance is improving across the board.” The AI Index Report further found that “the number of AI startups has seen exponential growth” and that “[f]rom 2013 to 2017, AI VC [venture capital] funding increased…

The Policyholder Perspective

Self-insured retentions are not a windfall for excess insurers looking to avoid coverage

By David E. Weiss, Cristina Shea & Connor O'Carroll

March 12, 2019

In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2019 WL 912151 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019), a California Court of Appeal recently held that an insured’s self-insured retention (SIR)[1] was considered part of the underlying limit of liability such that it need not be satisfied again and again just to access excess insurance policies. This case represents another example of the California appellate courts shooting down an insurance company’s attempt to overreach. Nonetheless,…

The Policyholder Perspective

Lightening the load: New York Appellate Division rejects heightened pleading standard for policyholders seeking Bi-Economy Market consequential damages

By Ann Kramer, Paul Breene, John Berringer, Rich Lewis & Anthony B. Crawford

February 1, 2019

In a recent unanimous decision, the Appellate Division First Department provided clarity on the pleading requirements for policyholders seeking special or consequential damages allowed under the landmark decision of Bi-Economy Market v. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, 856 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y., Feb. 19, 2008). Under Bi-Economy, policyholders may seek special or consequential damages resulting from an insurance company’s failure to provide coverage if such damages were foreseen or should have been foreseen when the…

The Policyholder Perspective

Federal court’s E-Cig decision provides cautionary tale

By Mike Sampson

December 27, 2018

Every policyholder in every industry should make sure that it in fact has obtained insurance covering the actual, specific risks presented by its line of business. That point is the critical one driven home by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in United Specialty Insurance Company v. E-Cig Vapor Emporium, LLC, No. EDCV 18-0002 JGB (SHKx), 2018 WL 5098859 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018). While applicable to any business in any…

The Policyholder Perspective

Federal crop insurance grows: Hemp to be covered

By Mike Sampson & Adam D. Brownrout

December 14, 2018

Federal crop insurance will soon be available for hemp. The federal Agriculture Improvement Act (H.R. 2) (the Act) – which has been approved by both houses of Congress and is now just awaiting the president’s signature – will amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. §1501, et seq., so that hemp will be a covered “agricultural commodity.” Federal crop insurance is available only for certain enumerated agricultural commodities, such as wheat, cotton, flax, and…

The Policyholder Perspective

Tangible property doesn’t have to be physically lost to find coverage

By David E. Weiss & Connor O'Carroll

November 8, 2018

A California Court of Appeal recently held that the alleged loss of use of a premises as a nightclub qualified as “property damage” under a general liability insurance policy. Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2018 WL 5292072 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018). Thee Sombrero, Inc. (Sombrero) owned and operated a nightclub in Colton, CA. After a fatal shooting at the club, city officials revoked Sombrero’s use permit and made it so the…

The Policyholder Perspective

California Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of insureds

By Kerry Roberson & David E. Weiss

June 11, 2018

On Monday, June 4, 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company must provide liability coverage to its corporate insured against claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of its employee, who allegedly sexually assaulted a 13-year-old child. The case is Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018). This decision is “of exceptional importance to injured parties, employers, and insurance companies doing business…

The Policyholder Perspective

CannaBeware: Make sure insurance actually covers the risks your business faces

By Mike Sampson

May 23, 2018

It should go without saying that when a business purchases any insurance policy – including, but not limited to, a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy – the business expects the policy to provide coverage for its line of business and the specific risks it faces. Cannabis-related businesses are no different. However, they must be especially vigilant to make sure that what an insurance company gives with “one hand” (the coverage grant), it does not…

The Policyholder Perspective

Final Mass. “adult-use” marijuana regulations require “Marijuana Establishments” to have liability insurance

By Mike Sampson & Kristy L. Keiser

March 16, 2018

As part of its “adult-use” marijuana regulations, which are expected to take effect next week, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will require that “Marijuana Establishments” – which include cultivators, manufacturers, and retailers – procure commercial liability insurance in established amounts. Massachusetts’ new regulations are the most recent reminder that cannabis-related businesses must be aware of state regulations and their insurance requirements. On March 9, 2018, Massachusetts’ Cannabis Control Commission (the “Commission”) “filed its finalized regulations” intended…

The Policyholder Perspective

Updates & thoughts on the full range of insurance coverage issues affecting commercial policyholders

Review state cannabis regulations for insurance requirements

Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier for Assessing Insurance Coverage

Self-insured retentions are not a windfall for excess insurers looking to avoid coverage

Lightening the load: New York Appellate Division rejects heightened pleading standard for policyholders seeking Bi-Economy Market consequential damages

Federal court’s E-Cig decision provides cautionary tale

Federal crop insurance grows: Hemp to be covered

Tangible property doesn’t have to be physically lost to find coverage

California Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of insureds

CannaBeware: Make sure insurance actually covers the risks your business faces

Final Mass. “adult-use” marijuana regulations require “Marijuana Establishments” to have liability insurance

Stay Connected

Company

Products

Support

New to the Network