Ohrenstein & Brown LLP https://www.oandb.com Tue, 23 May 2017 12:50:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 Long Island Dealership Loses Coverage Battle Over Sandy Damages https://www.oandb.com/long-island-dealership-loses-coverage-battle-over-sandy-damages/ https://www.oandb.com/long-island-dealership-loses-coverage-battle-over-sandy-damages/#respond Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:17:50 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=72 […]]]>

After more than five years, a Nissan dealership has come to the end of the road in its quest to have its insurer, Tower National Insurance, pay for property damage and loss of income the dealership suffered as a result of Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Nissan suffered millions of dollars in property damage when Sandy destroyed its inventory as well as an entire year of lost business as it recovered from the water damage. After Tower denied the initial claim based on the policy’s flood exclusion, Nissan sought coverage in state court.

Nissan met with initial some success, the same Judge that recently dismissed the case initially denied Tower’s motion to dismiss. After the Appellate Division reversed that decision, Nissan persevered and went back to the state judge with a new theory: the damage was not flood damage, but damage caused by a storm surge, which should be covered irrespective of flood due to a policy ambiguity.

The judge rejected that argument on the grounds that the appellate court had ruled there was no coverage for flood, and surge unquestionably was included.

Undaunted, Nissan got creative and sought to amend its complaint according to the elements of New York’s Consumer Protection Statute alleging that Tower intentionally misled Nissan into buying an ambiguous policy that failed to specifically state that the flood exclusion also excluded damage due to a storm surge.

Clever theories aside, the judge denied Nissan’s request on the grounds that it had presented no evidence that it had been misled by Tower Holding, stating “the proposed new claim is devoid of merit.”

While New York State homeowners have occasionally leveraged the Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition of deceptive trade practices against their insurers, most appellate courts agree that the Act only protects individual purchases for household purposes and courts are understandably less inclined to push the envelope in commercial lines.

While few can accurately predict catastrophe, Nissan’s plight demonstrates the importance of employing experienced professionals to assess and minimize risk before the waters start rising. The attorneys at Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP have earned their reputations as preeminent insurance leaders based on the firm’s global industry involvement at all phases for insurers, reinsurers, insureds, and intermediaries. It is that in-depth experience and understanding that allows us to provide our clients with comprehensive counsel and sound guidance before, during, and after disputes arise.

https://www.oandb.com/long-island-dealership-loses-coverage-battle-over-sandy-damages/feed/ 0
Court of Appeals Upholds Employer’s Use of Electronic “Click-Wrap” Agreements https://www.oandb.com/court-of-appeals-upholds-employers-use-of-electronic-click-wrap-agreements/ https://www.oandb.com/court-of-appeals-upholds-employers-use-of-electronic-click-wrap-agreements/#respond Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:16:29 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=70 […]]]>

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently declined to lift an injunction restricting two former employees of ADP from soliciting ADP’s clients on behalf of their new employer.

The clever twist here? The employer used a “click-wrap” agreement containing restrictive covenants, which the employees had to accept to access their bonus information online.

The two former employees worked in sales at ADP for six years before resigning and joining its direct competitor, Ultimate Software Group (USG). While employed at ADP both participated in the company’s stock award program through a webpage containing the award documents and requiring them to check a box indicating they had read all the associated documents.

ADP successfully enjoined its former employees because they had agreed to non-solicitation, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements to accept their stock awards.

The Circuit Court rejected the principal defense that they weren’t bound by the agreements because they had just checked off a box online which said they had read certain documents but did not specifically say that they had actually agreed to them.

The court found that the ex-employees were in fact bound by the agreement because the referenced documents did specifically state just that: by accepting the stock awards they were agreeing to the non-compete agreements. It was “irrelevant” that the former employees didn’t remember reading the documents because they had checked the box that they had.

The only caveat is that while the District Court granted in part ADP’s injunction, it allowed the former employers to continue working as long as they didn’t solicit ADP’s clients or use ADP’s proprietary information, which was affirmed.

The attorneys at Ohrenstein & Brown have extensive experience representing both employers and the executives who are often embroiled in these disputes through murkily legal waters. Often times, there is no bright line where the employer’s legitimate interest ends and the employee’s right to lawfully compete begins.  We use that experience to avoid, minimize and streamline often emotional disputes to deliver sound judgment.

https://www.oandb.com/court-of-appeals-upholds-employers-use-of-electronic-click-wrap-agreements/feed/ 0
Federal Court Denies Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgement Because “Commencing” Is Ambiguous https://www.oandb.com/federal-court-denies-insurers-motion-for-summary-judgement-because-commencing-is-ambiguous/ https://www.oandb.com/federal-court-denies-insurers-motion-for-summary-judgement-because-commencing-is-ambiguous/#respond Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:53:27 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=145 […]]]>

Justice Potter “I-Know-It-When-I-See-It” Stewart once suggested that logic could play a role in the judicial process observing that the oft-overlooked syllogism dictated inescapable outcomes only if both its premises are correct. This radical approach to reasoning was, 50 years ago, relegated to a dissent, where it remains firmly lodged through the present.

You may be asking what a U.S. Supreme Court draft-dodging case from the ‘60s has to do with a 2013 commercial property claim from Elk Grove, Illinois. It’s that our courts continue to make little room for logic; in this case the syllogism.

Under controlling Illinois authority, if ongoing property damage began prior to the policy period, and the insured cannot prove what portion of those losses occurred during the policy period, then the insured cannot meet its burden and the complaint must be dismissed.

It would therefore logically follow that when an insured building owner discovered during construction of an extension that its 36-year-old building was built on “urban backfill” resulting in differential settlement damage that, admittedly, began at an unknown time, no recovery could be had.

So argued Acuity Mutual Insurance Company after its insured commenced a declaratory judgment for unknown losses and admitted that it could not determine which damages, if any, occurred during the policy period. The Northern District of Illinois disagreed because it found the term “commencing” was ambiguous.

While the Court successfully ciphered that “to commence” means “to begin,” it could not embrace Acuity’s notion that differential settlement began at a single point in time. The insured argued that if the differential settlement caused any identifiable “new” damage during the policy period, even though it could not apparently identify any, coverage should be available.

The Court agreed and held the “policy may reasonably be read to include each identifiable instance of new damage or loss, regardless of whether similar damage or loss, or damage or loss with a common but chronologically distinguishable cause, commenced prior to the policy period.” The Court also denied summary judgment because discovery was incomplete.

The good news, for insurers, is the issue of incomplete discovery renders this decision far from controlling. The bad news, for everyone, is the cost of completing discovery that devolves into an expert dispute can be substantial. Protracted litigation increases the cost of doing business and the direct cost of insurance to consumers and business owners alike.

Likewise, the victory may prove pyrrhic; it did not address the policy’s standard policy language that excludes loss or damage caused by or resulting from settlement. To their credit, the attorneys for the insurer took the bold step of applying logic to the dispute to end it early. While that result often remains a bridge too far, given the narrowness of the proffered motion, this case is far from over.

Policy disputes, even when dealing with common facts and standard policy language, call for expert analysis and counseling. Both insurers and insureds can benefit from the deep industry experience of Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP. Our attorneys have earned their reputations as preeminent insurance leaders based on the firm’s global industry involvement at all phases for insurers, reinsurers, insureds, and intermediaries. It is that in-depth experience and understanding that allows us to provide our clients with comprehensive counsel and sound guidance before, during, and after disputes arise.

https://www.oandb.com/federal-court-denies-insurers-motion-for-summary-judgement-because-commencing-is-ambiguous/feed/ 0
Travelers Denied Reconsideration Bid in $167M Insurance Coverage Dispute https://www.oandb.com/travelers-denied-reconsideration-bid-in-167m-insurance-coverage-dispute/ https://www.oandb.com/travelers-denied-reconsideration-bid-in-167m-insurance-coverage-dispute/#respond Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:54:50 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=147 […]]]>

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to reconsider its previous ruling that denied Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.’s judgement in a $167M coverage dispute regarding unilateral settlement payments the insured, Becton Dickinson and Company, made in several class action and antitrust lawsuits.

Between 2004 and 2013 Becton settled several lawsuits on its own and years later turned the cases over to Travelers for payment of the claims. The insurer balked and sued Becton for declaratory relief, arguing that the medical supply company was not entitled to coverage due to the late notices. Travelers subsequently filed for a motion for judgement on the pleadings.

Travelers unsuccessfully argued that it was not required to show it had been prejudiced by Becton’s failure to provide timely notice of the lawsuits. The notice-prejudice rule varies from one jurisdiction to the next so what constitutes prejudice in one state may not meet the standard in another.

In denying the motion, the Court again noted that New Jersey law required the insurer to show appreciable prejudice, which Travelers could not do by arguing it merely lost the inability to investigate the claim, or that the court overlooked the so-called sophisticated insured exception to the prejudice requirement. In other words, large corporations should know better.

The lesson here is that even if the amount of money involved is worth fighting for – and $167 million certainly is – both insurers and policyholders need to understand the specific policy language related to late notices and be aware of what the standards are for the notice-prejudice rule in their state before entering the ring. In some jurisdictions – like New York, for example – the deprivation of the ability to investigate claims may qualify as prejudice, while in others –  like New Jersey and California – it does not meet the standard.

Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP has earned a reputation as one of the insurance industry’s preeminent law firms. Our attorneys first and foremost exploit their knowledge and experience for both policyholders and insurers to avoid costly litigation when possible. It is that same experience that allows our attorneys to favorably settle many of our coverage disputes prior to trial.

https://www.oandb.com/travelers-denied-reconsideration-bid-in-167m-insurance-coverage-dispute/feed/ 0
U.S. District Court Rules Tony Stewart Liable for Costs in Wrongful Death Suit https://www.oandb.com/u-s-district-court-rules-tony-stewart-liable-for-costs-in-wrongful-death-suit/ https://www.oandb.com/u-s-district-court-rules-tony-stewart-liable-for-costs-in-wrongful-death-suit/#respond Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:56:11 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=149 […]]]>

The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York demonstrates the limits of an insurer’s duty to defend by ruling that Axis Insurance Co.’s duty did not extend to a wrongful death lawsuit brought against NASCAR driver Tony Stewart in connection with a fatal accident during a race.

Two years ago, during the height of the action in the Empire Super Sprint (ESS) in Canandaigua, NY, Tony Steward struck and killed NASCAR driver. Ward had exited his disabled car and was walking down the track when he was hit by Stewart. Following the claim, Axis denied coverage to Stewart, eliciting a declaratory judgment contest for the high-stakes wrongful death litigation. At summary judgment, the case boiled down to fairly straightforward policy coverage dispute that hinged on the interpretation of standard policy language, which included a Schedule of Events endorsement. This endorsement listed 105 specific events that would be covered under the policy. Unfortunately for Stewart, the race in Canandaigua was not included in the list.

Stewart argued that the endorsement was ambiguous because it did not expressly state that it limited the policy’s bodily injury and property damage protection to claims arising from the listed events. Providing some assurance to the industry, the Court held this was a “painfully strained reading of the CGL Policy’s provisions.”

Insureds and Insurers must keep in the mind the reasonable expectations of the insured; in this case, notably a professional NASCAR driver purchasing event insurance. According to the Court, neither Mr. Stewart nor his peers “would have expected and understood that exposure to, and thus Axis’s possible responsibility for, insurance claims arising from team racing activities would be limited to the listed events.”

Whether you are a growing enterprise, performer, or small business owner, the lesson here is an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure. For any dynamic business and professional risk, communication remains the touchstone to ensure your resources are marshalled to maximize protection and minimize exposure. If uninsured loss can happen to Tony Stewart, it can happen to virtually any business venture that momentarily drops the ball.

Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP has earned a reputation as one of the insurance industry’s preeminent law firms because we are one of the few that have represented virtually every aspect of the industry. From insurer to policy holder to broker and risk manager, our attorneys’ experience and understanding of the industry allows us to provide our clients with comprehensive counsel and sound guidance before, during, and after disputes arise.

https://www.oandb.com/u-s-district-court-rules-tony-stewart-liable-for-costs-in-wrongful-death-suit/feed/ 0
Long Island Nail Salons Order to Pay $203k for Violating Labor Laws https://www.oandb.com/long-island-nail-salons-order-to-pay-203k-for-violating-labor-laws/ https://www.oandb.com/long-island-nail-salons-order-to-pay-203k-for-violating-labor-laws/#respond Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:57:04 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=152 […]]]> Six nail salons on Long Island, N.Y. were ordered to pay more than $200,000 in back pay and penalties after an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor revealed the businesses committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The investigation, run by the Long Island district office of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, found that between 2012 and 2015 95 employees at the six Nassau and Suffolk County nail salons were paid a flat fee without overtime or regard to the hours they actually worked. As is often the case, the employers’ exacerbated the problem by keeping inaccurate and complete employment and payroll records.

This latest investigation is part of the division’s ongoing strategic enforcement initiative to eliminate wage violations and help educate vulnerable workers in the low-wage, nail salon industry about their employment rights. As part of their settlement, the salons agreed to pay more than $178,000 in back wages and damages as well as $24,640 in civil penalties.

This is not the first time the nail salon industry has come under fire in New York. The New York Times published an investigative report in May 2015 on the rampant exploitation of nail salon employees. This prompted NY State to launch a task force focused on safety and labor practices in nail salons. As a result 143 nail salons, mainly in Manhattan, were ordered by state authorities to pay $2 million in unpaid wages and damages to employees.

Between the FLSA and the individual state labor laws employers of every size, particularly family business, start-ups, and other small businesses, need to be cognizant of their responsibilities in regards to minimum wage, overtime pay eligibility, and record keeping standards to prevent violations from occurring. Just as important, they need to keep abreast of any amendments or newly introduced labor laws to ensure their business practices to remain compliant. In a particularly unforgiving twist, the same vulnerable employees who are employed in a flawed business model often start their own family businesses that become equally at risk of violations.

The attorneys at Ohrenstein & Brown can provide expert guidance and counsel for employers on the full range of employment and labor law issues including wage & hour, discrimination, and ensuring your business is protected from calamity with the appropriate types of coverage.

https://www.oandb.com/long-island-nail-salons-order-to-pay-203k-for-violating-labor-laws/feed/ 0
EEOC Asks Fifth Circuit to Reconsider the Latest Challenge to Its Guidance on Criminal Background Checks https://www.oandb.com/eeoc-asks-fifth-circuit-to-reconsider-the-latest-challenge-to-its-guidance-on-criminal-background-checks/ https://www.oandb.com/eeoc-asks-fifth-circuit-to-reconsider-the-latest-challenge-to-its-guidance-on-criminal-background-checks/#respond Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:59:25 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=156 […]]]>

Like most employers that staff positions of leadership and fiscal responsibility, the State of Texas has a policy of not hiring felons. As it turns out, so does the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Yet, that did not stop the federal agency from asking the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its recent ruling reinstating Texas’ challenge to its guidelines on the use of criminal background checks.

The EEOC Guidance posits that the use of background checks is permissible but cautions that they have a disparate impact on Blacks, Hispanics, and male applicants. Despite recognizing that background checks are permissible, it has nevertheless been litigating these guidelines for several years with a heavy hand.

In EEOC v. Freeman, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order precluding the EEOC’s industrial and organization psychologist expert from testifying for unreliability and inadequate data sample and went on to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie adverse impact claim. That case took six years to resolve.

In EEOC v. Kaplan, the Sixth Circuit did the same: it precluded the same expert and dismissed the adverse impact claims against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. Notably that Court noted the EEOC employed background checks itself for sensitive positions and that Kaplan had demonstrated a real need in screening its loan officers based on a previous experience of employee self-dealing and theft. It took 3 and ½ years of litigation to reach this conclusion.

Yet in South Carolina, the EEOC leveraged a $1.6M settlement from BMW after that court denied BMW Manufacturing Co LLC’s motion for summary judgement despite concerns over the reliability of the expert report. After two years of litigation, BMW settled and accepted federal monitoring over its hiring practices.

In Illinois, Dollar General Corp., the country’s largest discount retailer, continues to fight the EEOC tooth-and-nail. While litigating a race complaint against the same employer, the EEOC commenced a separate action challenging the use of its background checks. While the original race matter settled for a mere $32,500, discovery in Illinois continues three years on. Unlike the Kaplan matter, that court denied Dollar General discovery into the EEOC’s own use of background checks.

Back in Texas, the EEOC continues to challenge whether an employer with over 300,000 employees has standing to challenge its guidelines. This case exemplifies the litigation exposure facing employers today. Employers in New York are already subject to the state law prohibiting discrimination for prior criminal offenses unless substantively related to the position sought. For private employers, the best guidance to reduce exposure to litigation is to abide the highest common denominator and assess employee qualifications on the merits while providing a realistic assessment of whether prior or youthful offenses impact a candidate’s qualifications. The EEOC appears to bristle at blanket requirements and background checks should be employed where substantively needed, subject to specific guidelines that reference the EEOC and state law, if available.

It is impossible for business owners to navigate the myriad regulations imposed by federal, state and local authorities. It is vital that employers find qualified legal counsel to help navigate this complex web to ensure that they remain compliant and avoid costly litigation. If you have questions or concerns about EEOC actions and how they can affect your company’s hiring processes, or are seeking advice on any facet of employment or administrative law Ohrenstein & Brown attorneys are available to provide guidance and counsel to employers of all sizes.

https://www.oandb.com/eeoc-asks-fifth-circuit-to-reconsider-the-latest-challenge-to-its-guidance-on-criminal-background-checks/feed/ 0
New York Federal Court Confirms the Liabilities of a Protected Cell May Be Imposed Against the “Core” https://www.oandb.com/new-york-federal-court-confirms-the-liabilities-of-a-protected-cell-may-be-imposed-against-the-core/ https://www.oandb.com/new-york-federal-court-confirms-the-liabilities-of-a-protected-cell-may-be-imposed-against-the-core/#respond Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:00:47 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=158 […]]]>

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed that a protected cell captive insurance company may be held to account for the liabilities of its protected cells. While the Southern District’s confirmation of the $7.8M award was based on traditional deference to contractual arbitration, the ruling nevertheless heralds the recognition and confirmation of a prior Magistrate Judge’s ruling from the U.S. District of Montana.

The dispute arises out of captive reinsurance agreement between AmTrust North America, Inc. and Pacific Re, Inc., a Montanan protected cell captive insurer, and its protected cell, known as Pac Re 5-AT, created to reinsure AmTrust. Once the Cell’s funds were depleted, AmTrust demanded arbitration against both Pacific Re and Pac Re 5-AT. Pacific Re then filed an action in the U.S. District Court of Montana seeking declaratory judgment to limit liability to the Cell’s assets. Pacific Re sought to leave AmTrust holding the proverbial bag by arguing that only its Cell, and not the “Core” entity, was a proper party to the arbitration.

Guided by Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, attorneys for AmTrust, Magistrate Judge Ostby ruled that because the legislation provided the option to incorporate a cell, and Pac Re 5-AT remained unincorporated, it was not a separate legal entity from the PCC “core” and therefore, had no capacity to contract or to sue and be sued independent of Pacific Re. Accordingly, the Montana Court held Pacific Re was party to the arbitration and would be bound by the results.

Applying the Montana Court’s ruling, Ohrenstein & Brown then demanded security from Pacific Re as a foreign insurer pursuant to an oft-overlooked statutory requirement under New York Insurance Law that prohibits unlicensed foreign insurers and reinsurers from defending themselves in New York tribunals absent security for the amount in dispute. Once Pacific Re declined to post the required security, the Arbitration Panel granted judgment pursuant to the captive reinsurance contractual terms that required Pac Re to post collateral and reimburse AmTrust’s third-party administrator fees. Notwithstanding Judge Ostby’s ruling, Pacific Re unsuccessfully opposed the confirmation of the Award claiming the Panel misapplied the Montana law because the award, if confirmed, could unintentionally reach the assets of other protected cells.

In confirming the award U.S. District Judge McMahon held that the Panel did not disregard the law but in fact applied Judge Ostby’s ruling as they understood it–noting that Judge Ostby expressly held Pacific Re would be bound by the result: “Parties who choose to by-pass the courts cannot be heard to complain if arbitrators do not reach the result they think a court would have reached.”

Both the New York and Montana decisions demonstrate that choosing the right counsel plays a crucial role when dealing with captives and potential reinsurance disputes. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP has earned a reputation as one of the insurance industry’s preeminent law firms. Our in-depth experience and understanding of the industry allows us to provide our clients with comprehensive counsel and sound guidance before, during, and after disputes arise.

https://www.oandb.com/new-york-federal-court-confirms-the-liabilities-of-a-protected-cell-may-be-imposed-against-the-core/feed/ 0
Second Circuit Ruling Reverses Insurer’s Duty To Defend https://www.oandb.com/second-circuit-ruling-reverses-insurers-duty-to-defend/ https://www.oandb.com/second-circuit-ruling-reverses-insurers-duty-to-defend/#respond Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:58:08 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=154 […]]]>

In a ruling favorable to insurers, the Second Circuit reversed a decision that Century Indemnity Co. had a duty to defend its insured, the Narragansett Electric Company (NEC), in an environmental lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Like most insurance disputes, this case turned on the application of the complaint against the policy language. Even where a policy employs standard ISO language, each dispute merits close examination. Liability policies afford “property damage” coverage to damages caused by accidents, which include “continual or repeated exposure” claims. Hence, modern liability policies include pollution exclusions, which exclude coverage of property damage arising from dispersal or release of pollutants unless the discharge was sudden and accidental.

The Commonwealth’s complaint alleged that NEC’s predecessor had contracted with a disposal company from 1930-1945, and it was during this time that pollutants accumulated. Yet the District Court found the Commonwealth’s claims could trigger the sudden and accidental carve-out language because the complaint also alleged that some of the property damage occurred in 1984 during a residential excavation project. The District Court surmised that it was plausible and reasonable that this excavation would have been conducted with earth-moving equipment and the release of pollutants from such activity was potentially sudden and abrupt. Relying on Massachusetts law, which like New York’s requires the defense of the entire lawsuit if any of the allegations may trigger coverage, the District Court granted summary judgment to NEC.

This was no small defense: after coverage was denied NEC spent over 20 years defending itself and incurred more than $5.5 million in defense costs. On appeal the Second Circuit returned some measure of rationality to the interpretation of insurance policies. Without specifically identifying the District Court’s conjecture, the Circuit held that the Commonwealth’s complaint squarely alleged the property damage arose during intentional disposal activities over decades. The Circuit distinguished this case from similar lawsuits, such as Nashua Corp. v. First State Insurance Co., in which the release of pollutants was held to be sudden and accidental because it arose out of unexpected events – like an explosion or rupture of a tank seal – and not as part of a company’s ordinary operations.

This case reminds us how far most courts will employ the doctrine of contra proferenetm in reading policies, and deciding cases, against insurers. The attorneys at Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP first and foremost exploit their experience for both policyholders and insurers to avoid costly litigation when possible. It is that same experience that allows our attorneys to favorably settle many of our coverage disputes prior to trial.

https://www.oandb.com/second-circuit-ruling-reverses-insurers-duty-to-defend/feed/ 0
Insurance Coverage https://www.oandb.com/insurance-coverage/ https://www.oandb.com/insurance-coverage/#respond Sun, 08 Mar 2015 12:02:01 +0000 http://oandb.com/?p=160 […]]]>

2nd Circuit Holds No Prejudice Required To Deny Late Claim Under New York Law When Policy Is Not “Issued And Delivered” In New York

The Second Circuit clarified that the Insurance Law § 3420(a)(5) prejudice rule is limited by the statute and does not apply to late claims reported under policies that were not “issued and delivered” in New York. In Indian Harbor Insurance Co. v. City of San Diego  the Circuit court affirmed summary judgment allowing the insurer to avoid pollution liability claims for a mere 58 day late notice.

San Diego’s pollution liability insurance policy contained a New York choice of law provision and standard notice requirements to report claims “as soon as practicable”.  San Diego challenged the denial under the statutory prejudice rule to no avail; both the district court and the Second Circuit held that the policy was not “issued” in New York because it was signed electronically in the Company’s office in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Insurers, insureds, and brokers are well advised to read their policies closely or seek counsel when the policy language is not clear. While policies subject to New York law remain unaffected by the prejudice rule when they are not delivered or issued in state if the policy does not contain an express choice law clause, New York law likely will not apply to out of state risks and the “no prejudice rule” remains the minority position.

The attorneys at Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP enjoy a top ranked insurance practice and broad experience counseling and litigating policy obligations and all manner of coverage issues that arise under the myriad of policies associated with commercial and professional risk in today’s business environment.

https://www.oandb.com/insurance-coverage/feed/ 0