Many forms of liability insurance protect against invasion of privacy claims. Should a policyholder be confronted by such a claim, umbrella insurance, general liability insurance, errors and omissions policies and other stand-alone specialty insurance policies should be checked for potential coverage. More proactively, if an insurance portfolio review reveals that those provisions have been written out of the businesses’ portfolio of insurance, the broker should be enlisted to get those increasingly important coverages back in.

For more, read the entire article, only on RMmagazine.com

In one recent case, for example, a policyholder was the victim of a computer hacker. The insurance company refused to pay the claim, but the court rejected the insurers attempts to evade payment and ruled that the policyholder was entitled to crime coverage for the theft of customer data.

Such a ruling is not only supported by the language of many crime policies (which often contain a provision indicating that they provide coverage for the theft of property not owned but in the possession of the policyholder), but also by numerous crime insurance coverage cases over the decades.

For more on this important coverage issue, check out the rest of the article, only on RMmagazine.com.

Most D&O insurance policies promise some measure of insurance protection against “regulatory and governmental” investigations, “administrative or regulatory proceedings” and criminal proceedings. However, many insurance companies will argue this coverage is not triggered until certain documents are prepared by the investigating entity and until they are prepared and drafted in a very specific way. For instance, does the investigation start when a subpoena is served or only when a “formal” investigative order is issued under the insurance policy? Insurance companies may argue that they are not on the hook for millions of dollars in “loss” until certain specific aspects of the investigation come to pass.

Considering the importance of D&O coverage for senior management, you won’t want to miss this online exclusive, only on RMmagazine.com.

In the context of product recall insurance coverage, some insurance companies may attempt to avoid coverage for a product recall losses by arguing that there is no evidence that the product in question did or would cause bodily injuries or damage. Specifically, the insurance company may argue that to trigger coverage, the use or consumption of the product must have resulted or would result in identifiable bodily injury, sickness, disease or death. Such insurance company arguments place the policyholder in an awkward position: namely, in an effort to establish coverage, the policyholder is being urged by the insurance company to evidence just how toxic its product was or could potentially be.

For important advice that will help you get your business back to normal in the event of a costly product recall, click here to read the full article exclusively on RMMagazine.com.