In the following guest post, Peter Selvin discussed the Fifth Circuit’s July 21, 2021 decision in Landry’s Incorporated v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (here), which considered the question of coverage under a commercial general liability policy of damages from a data breach caused by a third-party hacker. Selvin is a partner with Los Angeles-based Ervin Cohen & Jessup. A version of this article previously was published in the LA Daily Journal. I would like to thank Peter for allowing me to publish his article on my site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: CGL Coverage for Data Breaches: New Developments
A recurring D&O insurance coverage issue is the availability under a D&O insurance policy of coverage for a Delaware appraisal action. As discussed 
Regular readers of this blog know that I have been following the developing SPAC-related litigation closely. Readers also know that the cast of defendants in these cases can be extensive, diverse, and in some cases overlapping. For example, the defendants may include former directors and officers of the SPAC; former directors and officers of the acquired company; and current directors and officers of the company formed by the merger. Some of the individuals named may be sued in more than one capacity. These features of the suits will complicate the litigation. These features will also complicate the application of insurance to the defense and settlement of this litigation, as well.
In the latest development in Pfizer’s long-running efforts to recover from its D&O insurers amounts the company paid in defense and settlement of prior securities litigation (the “Morabito Action”), a Delaware Superior Court Judge, applying Delaware law, has held that the company’s settlement with a lower level excess insurer for less than that insurer’s policy limit did not create a gap relieving an upper layer excess insurer of its payment obligations. The court also found that the company’s earlier notice of a different securities litigation did not trigger the policy’s Prior Notice exclusion. The court’s August 28, 2020 opinion can be found 
In the following guest post, Christopher Bannon of the Aronberg Goldgehn law firm takes a look at a recent ruling in which the court addressed the question of whether a lawsuit seeking the return of an administrative fee is a suit for “damages” within the meaning of the applicable insurance policy. A version of this article previously was published as an Aronberg Goldgehn client alert. I would like to thank Chris for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Chris’s guest post.
In a recent decision in an insurance coverage dispute, a federal court applying Puerto Rico law concluded that there was no coverage under a management liability insurance policy for a discrimination claim that had first been made prior to the policy period of the claims made policy at issue, and that notice of the claim was untimely as well. The court’s conclusion is in a sense unremarkable. What is worth considering about the ruling is how often these same problems recur, as discussed below. The District of Puerto Rico’s May 28, 2020 opinion can be found 
Regular readers of this blog know that among my 
As the policy definition of the term “Claim” has expanded in recent years, the range of incidents and procedures for which the policyholder must provide notice to the insurer has also grown. Among the recent expansions has been the inclusion in many policies of a “subpoena” within the meaning of the term “Claim.” As a result, a policyholder’s failure to notify its insurer of a “subpoena” could imperil coverage for a later related lawsuit. However, as a federal district court recently held, applying New York law, the notice requirement is not triggered if the prior “subpoena” does not meet the professional liability insurance policy’s definition of the term “claim,” and, the court further held that the failure to notify the insurer of the subpoena did not preclude coverage for a later suit. The court’s decision sheds interesting light on a number of frequently recurring coverage issues.
Social engineering fraud, or as it is sometimes called, business instruction fraud, has unfortunately become all too common. In many instances, the defrauded companies’ losses are huge. In a recent insurance coverage dispute, the social engineering fraud loss involved was not as large as some of the others have been. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the relatively small size of the loss, the court concluded that coverage for the company’s loss was precluded by the “voluntary parting” exclusion in its crime policy. As discussed below, there are still some lessons to be drawn from this case. Eastern District of Virginia Judge