Brendan Sweet

What is the impact of the recent ruling in National Union Fire Insurance Co of Pittsburgh PA v. RealPage Inc. for policyholders suffering cyber-crime losses? HNRK insurance recovery partner Bradley Nash spoke with Law360 Insurance Authority to discuss this win for policyholders. Read his full thoughts here: https://lnkd.in/eXFg4Kk7.    #InsuranceRecovery #InsuranceCoverage #Cyber #Insurance #Policyholders

26

1 Comment

Recent court cases highlight the critical need for clarity in insurance letters. In Selective Way Insurance Company v. MAK Services, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that an insurer's vague reservation of rights letter, which failed to mention a "Snow and Ice Removal" exclusion explicitly, led to the insurer being estopped from denying coverage later on. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gfhAzigY Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dealt with a case where insurers initially refused to cover defense costs for the Germantown School District. The court mandated retroactive reimbursement, emphasizing the duty to defend while resolving coverage issues. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gyKku92c To prevent these issues, we've developed an AI-powered solution that ensures coverage letters are clear, detailed, and compliant, reducing litigation risks. #Insurance #Insurtech #AI #ClaimsManagement #LegalCompliance

2

The next time you look over your ERIE auto insurance policy, look for the “Xs” throughout the margins. These are all the “Xtra Protection Features” that are automatically included with your ERIE auto policy. Here are some amazing features that you might not know are covered! Your ERIE Agent is here to help, so be sure to ask about these features. #ERIEEmployee

1

Collision vs. comprehensive coverage – we’re answering frequently asked questions. https://lnkd.in/euSnNUFz

1

The Amwins State of the Market (SOTM) is now available! Preview of the Casualty section: - Middle Market sector grows (premiums: $25k - $100k) - Litigation remains high, especially in plaintiff friendly states like GA, PA, & CA - Capacity is tough to come by, but new markets enter everyday Read the Full Report: https://lnkd.in/evXhT9MS and/or Amwins State of the Market

19

One of the potential coverage disputes that could arise from named storms and have been the subject of litigation, is sewer backup and the causal connection to flooding from the storm. A New Jersey federal court decision this summer (G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)) can shed some light on the importance of how flooding is defined in a policy and the application of a flood exclusion when it is related to a sewer backup claim. The insured in this case suffered property damage due to leakage from plumbing fixtures. Intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the city's drainage system and the carrier took the position that the cause was flooding and therefore, the flood exclusion would apply, notwithstanding the affirmative grant of coverage for sewer backup. The court ruled in favor of the insured by distinguishing this case from another one involving a similar suit in which the insurer prevailed. The distinction lay in the definition of flood. One policy included "the accumulation of surface water, ... [or the] overflow of streams or other bodies of water" in the definition of flood whereas the other policy defined it as the "overflow of surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, streams, or other bodies of water." Since the latter only defined it as an overflow of a body of water (and did not include accumulation of surface water), the court separated and distinguished it from an overflow of a sewer system. If an insured encounters a denial for sewer backup due to a flood exclusion, particularly in the most recent storms, it's good to be aware of some of the case law that could support an argument in favor of coverage.

32

4 Comments

Will be interesting to see how premiums are affected and what if there will be regulations around insurers ability to adjust premiums. Also, could this potentially push the percentage of total losses higher?

1

Pennsylvania Federal District Court Declines to Block FTC Noncompete Ban On July 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the plaintiff’s motion in ATS Tree Services LLC v. FTC for a preliminary injunction to block the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) noncompete ban. This ruling differs from an early July holding in a similar case in the Northern District of Texas (Ryan LLC v. FTC) that partially blocked the ban with respect to the plaintiffs in that case, but not nationwide. In each case, the ban is still scheduled to take effect for most employers on Sept. 4, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the FTC published a final rule prohibiting employers from entering into or enforcing noncompete clauses with most employees. The final rule is scheduled to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. Subject to very limited exceptions, the final rule provides that: - The use of noncompete clauses will be banned as of the effective date; - Any existing noncompete clauses (other than those entered into with senior executives) will be invalidated; and - Employers must notify all employees (other than senior executives whose existing noncompete agreements will remain enforceable) that their existing noncompete agreements will not be enforced. Currently, the enforceability of noncompete clauses is determined by state and local legislatures and courts. The FTC rule would instead govern the enforceability of noncompete clauses at the federal level and supersede any less restrictive state laws or judicial interpretations. In ATS, the plaintiff (a small tree-trimming company) filed a motion for a stay of the effective date and a preliminary injunction to prevent the ban from taking effect. The plaintiff argued that the noncompete ban exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority, is unconstitutional, and is arbitrary and capricious. The Pennsylvania court denied the plaintiff’s motion and rejected its arguments, reasoning that the ban is within the FTC’s rulemaking authority. This holding directly conflicts with the Texas court’s holding in Ryan, which found that the FTC lacks such rulemaking authority. Per the Pennsylvania court’s ruling, the ban is still set to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024, so employers may take steps now to ensure compliance with the law by this date. However, the Northern District of Texas indicated its plan to issue a final ruling in Ryan by Aug. 30, 2024. Therefore, employers should continue to monitor for updates and wait to implement any final changes, as the final ruling in the Ryan case or other legal challenges could still result in the ban being modified, delayed or even vacated. Employers should also prepare for potential uncertainty in light of conflicting rulings.  #humanresources #hr #cfo #employeebenefits #noncompete

2

Since slip-and-fall cases occur frequently in the Northeast, a good Insurance Advisor may counsel clients to keep snow removal logs so they can point to when they cleared the snow as part of their defense, potentially lessening their negligence. https://bit.ly/4aM38ab #publicadjuster #wemakeiteasier #insuranceadvisor #insuranceclaims #risk

1

Reach out to us to learn how we can assist you and take a moment to check out our new blog post!

4

New York's State AWW is now $1,757.19, resulting in a max WC rate of $1,171.46 effective 7/1/2024. This AWW seems high, it is released on 4/16, one day after the State Tax Day. What it represents in NY is the loss of middle income families due to high cost of living. The remaining higher white collar jobs that are staying in NY are driving this figure. What we are not accounting for is the flood of off the books workers, who if their income were to be included would yield an accurate representation of the State's AWW and not place such a burden on the business's of NYS. This makes it essential for businesses to work closely with their carrier's claims professionals and Litigation Teams to ensure equitable results in WC claims.

4

“Matching” disagreements can extend claims and spark Reference or litigation – which is why this court decision is so important.  Read more here. #publicadjuster #propertyclaims #legalalert

2

The claims process can appear daunting and overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Our checklist explains what to do before and after a claim is filed. Thank you to our National Claims Practice. Learn more: https://ow.ly/lVIV50S1tU7 #ClaimsManagement #InsuranceClaims #Claims

10

Claims handling habits that translate to underwriting. Talking to people on the phone. >a little phone call doesn’t scare you Documenting conversations. >if there’s not a note, it didn’t happen Using templates to streamline workflow. >no need to recreate the wheel every time Reading and interpreting policy language. >does coverage apply to this situation Decision making based on evidence. >stick to the unbiased reports

64

Recent Court Decision Clarifies Additional Insured Coverage A recent New Jersey federal court decision on July 3, 2024, in Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., has significant implications for additional insured coverage. The court ruled that the phrase "caused, in whole or in part" does not limit coverage to vicarious liability. This aligns with the majority approach across various jurisdictions, meaning that as long as the named insured is at least partly responsible for the harm, the additional insured can seek coverage. Example of Broader Coverage: Imagine a construction site where a subcontractor's worker gets injured. If the subcontractor is partly responsible for the injury, the general contractor (who is also covered by the subcontractor's insurance) can get help from that insurance, even if the general contractor also did something wrong that caused the injury. Example of Limited Risk Transfer: Now, think about if the court had decided that "caused, in whole or in part" only means vicarious liability. In this case, the general contractor would only get help from the subcontractor's insurance if they were being blamed just because of their connection to the subcontractor. If the general contractor did anything directly wrong, they wouldn't be covered. This would make it much harder for general contractors to get insurance help and transfer risk effectively. This broader interpretation supports easier access to additional insured coverage, facilitating better risk transfer and defense in lawsuits. Employers should review their insurance policies and contractual agreements to ensure they understand the scope of coverage and are prepared for potential litigation. Stay informed about legal trends to optimize your risk management strategies and ensure comprehensive coverage. #Insurance #RiskManagement #LegalUpdate #WorkplaceSafety #BusinessLaw

8