Adam Fleischer explored the rising use of public nuisance theories in mass tort litigation and their implications for insurers in ARIAS U.S. Quarterly.

Matt explores two recent Illinois cases ruling on whether and when causation issues are part of the amount of loss within the purview of an appraisal panel. 

Lindsey and co-author Christopher Morrison of Swiss Re discuss releases that may relieve a primary insurer’s obligations, but do not settle the claim.

Florida’s new “tort reform” legislation (HB837) includes several important provisions for insurers related to bad faith liability and prevailing party attorney fees in some coverage disputes.

Applying Iowa law, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a dispute over Medicare and Medicaid billing errors does not involve professional services as that term was defined under the healthcare professional liability policies.  DeWall v. Med. Protective Co., 22-1952, 2023 WL 1790697 (8th Cir. February 7, 2023).

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that, under New York law, a marine insurance policy did not afford coverage for the lost value of the insured’s excess shoe inventory sustained as a result of its retail customers cancelling their orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Moda, LLC, SC 20678, 2023 WL 1087510 (Jan. 27, 2023). 

A small number of states, including Georgia and Missouri, have enacted statutes intended to provide clarity regarding the contents, timing and response to time-limited demands under certain circumstances.  California recently joined this minority, passing Senate Bill 1155, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 999-999.5 effective January 1, 2023.

In a maritime insurance coverage dispute involving late notice to the insurer, a federal district court in Louisiana recently denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment notwithstanding its findings that the insureds unreasonably delayed in reporting the loss and the insurer established actual prejudice resulting from the insureds’ unreasonable delay. Champagne v. M/V Uncle John, et al., No. 21-476, 2022 WL 6742007 (E.D. LA October 11, 2022).

Have parents sustained compensable damages if they have an unplanned child as a result of a physician’s failure to meet the standard of care when providing contraceptive care? What if the child is born with disabilities that were not caused by the physician’s care? Is the physician liable for the extraordinary medical costs necessitated by the child’s condition? May the parents recover for emotional distress arising from raising a child with disabilities? The Washington Supreme Court recently answered these questions in the affirmative in Pacheco v. U.S., 515 P.3d 510 (2022).

Jason P. Minkin and Viridiana Marcial share insights on marine insurance coverage developments in the wake of Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC.