Tag Archives: Litigation

Immediate Vault

Understanding New York’s New Insurance Disclosure Requirements

Posted on by

If your organization operates or could be sued in New York, there has been recent activity on the legal and regulatory risk landscape that risk professionals should be prepared for.

New York’s newly-enacted Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Requirements legislation opens the door for defendants to request that organizations disclose the details of their commercial insurance programs that may apply to a judgment in the case. These details include policy limits and potentially even access to your claims adjusters. For those with more complex risk financing structures, the law may also lead to the misinterpretation of the organization’s coverages.

For the greatest success in complying with this new regulation, risk professionals must become their legal department’s greatest ally, stepping in to lend their expertise to prevent potential confusion and errors. Risk professionals can be integral in keeping sensitive information confidential, monitoring all disclosure requests and alerting their teams to any discrepancies in the interpretation of the shared information.

Additionally, risk professionals should proactively identify the relevant policies for counsel, mindful that the policy or program must potentially respond to the plaintiff’s claim.

What are the New York Disclosure Law’s requirements and how do they impact your insurance program?

The New York law requires that an insured defendant disclose information about any insurance policies sold or delivered in New York that could be applicable to a plaintiff’s claim. This requires careful assessment to ensure compliance while avoiding potentially unnecessary insurance disclosures.

Depending on the claimed amount and a program’s retention levels, disclosures likely include primary insurance policies and may include excess and umbrella policies as well. 

The disclosure requirements extend to various risk financing structures, including captives, self-insurance programs, risk retention groups and surplus lines insurers. Many claims may not reach the retentions, arguably rendering the insurance policies nonresponsive to the claim.

Other than in personal injury protection cases, the New York law requires that insured defendants provide proof of insurance to other parties within 90 days after answering the complaint. This could lead to the disclosure of incorrect insurance information. To address that risk, risk professionals can instruct counsel to obtain the proper COI for a particular claim and advise that it may need to fine-tune their COI process with outside vendors or brokers.

In the cases where arguments are made that COIs are not sufficient proof of insurance, insureds should be prepared to disclose redacted portions of their declaration pages. 

The New York law also requires insured defendants to identify the claims adjustor assigned to the claim, including a potentially surprising level of detail such as the adjustor’s direct email address. It is critical to keep claims adjusters informed and risk professionals should alert their adjustors before this disclosure is made. Immediately report to counsel any plaintiff communications to the adjustor.

What steps can risk managers take to ensure compliance?

If possible, a risk professional or an attorney familiar with insurance coverage should assume responsibility for an organization’s compliance with these disclosure requirements in all New York cases. This will be instrumental in ensuring responses are uniform and avoiding disclosure errors. 

Creating a checklist, as well as a readily accessible library of COIs, redacted declarations pages, and other pertinent information can help keep the organization compliant with New York’s law. Although there might be differing disclosure requirements, organizations with larger footprints should consider extending this structure across other states as well.

By taking these steps, risk professionals can minimize insurance disclosure disputes, assist with their organization’s compliance efforts, and avoid unnecessary interference with an organization’s insurance program.

Texas Cold Crisis: Insurance Options for Severe Weather Disruption

Posted on by

On February 15, a massive and unseasonal storm with frigid temperatures spiked the demand for power and outpaced the supply, severing power to 26 million Texans. Unpredictable weather patterns present risks for business owners, but also create an opportunity to improve their risk mitigation strategies to address future uncertainties. 

Power outages are not caused by storms alone. Heat waves, hurricanes and wildfires can also create power outages—and outages are more common than business leaders may think. S&C’s 2018 Commercial and Industrial Power Reliability Report found that one in four businesses experience at least one power outage per month. The Department of Energy estimates that these outages cost companies $150 million per year. Although companies may face spoilage-related losses, data centers often experience the most severe consequences. When a data center goes down, it can impact a business’s most vital proprietary assets. According to a Ponemon Institute study, the cost of an unplanned data center outage is $5,600 per minute with an average recovery time of 119 minutes resulting in a loss over $690,000.

The cost for businesses goes beyond damage. Litigation tends to run rampant, and with the recent Texas power outages, businesses are already facing lawsuits. The family of an 11-year-old boy who died of hypothermia is suing energy company Entergy and grid operator Electric Reliability Company of Texas. Multiple wrongful death lawsuits are predicted from incidents including carbon monoxide poisonings, house fires and shelter closings.

A range of insurance options can help businesses protect themselves from complex, evolving and completely unpredictable risks such as natural disasters and climate change.

Property insurance protects the building and physical assets like equipment, supplies, inventory, fixtures and computers. However, property insurance may not provide all the coverage needed. Exclusions like floods, sink holes, earthquakes, terror incidents, and chemical, nuclear, biological and environmental events are likely not covered. An unexpected policy exclusion can be devastating and result in a claim being denied, leaving business owners and leaders feeling helpless and infuriated.

Business interruption insurance is helpful but may not be enough. Typically, when damage obstructs business operations, it is covered by property insurance, and business interruption insurance covers losses from interruption. However, a natural disaster can create a perfect storm, so to speak. For example, if an establishment is forced to close due to lack of power, there can be a denial of claims. Business owners may be able to have property repaired, but cannot recoup the lost revenue through insurance.

Another option for businesses is to choose captive insurance and own their own insurance company. This establishes a more robust approach to risk management, and enables the business or business owner to own a profitable second business. This can help lower commercial insurance costs, build up assets and loss reserves, enhance critically needed cash flow and liquidity, and help prevent losses from hollowing out the total business entity. Importantly, successful captive insurance companies are filled with liquid assets that back the reserves for potential future losses, owned by the business or business owner. Liquid assets are often more desirable than durable assets that depreciate and may be difficult to sell. Finally, a captive insurance company is a regulated entity.

A captive primarily insures its parent company or related companies, so the parent company can purchase insurance from its wholly owned captive. Such purchases may replace all, or a portion, of its commercial insurance. Additionally, risks that are unable to be insured, are cost prohibitive, or are underinsured in the commercial insurance market can be placed in the captive insurance company. The captive can also insure gaps in third-party commercial insurance policies.

Benefits of Captives in Natural Disasters

While businesses with claims for property insurance or business interruption coverage are denied, a business with a captive insurance company would not face exclusions that leave them vulnerable. Since a captive insurance policy can be written to be broad and robust, it has more triggers than third-party commercial insurance, sos an event may covered where business interruption might not provide coverage.

Captive insurance also serves as a valuable financial strategy. When captives build up loss reserves, backed by corresponding assets, those assets are available for dealing with a catastrophic event. When a business has to restart or relocate their operations, assets are readily available to help it navigate the challenges and pursue big changes. The business owner can use the asset buildup in successfully managed captive insurance companies to help grow the business by funding acquisitions, growth strategies and enhanced risk mitigation strategies via a dividend from the captive insurance company to the business owner.

Before another crisis strikes, businesses should review insurance policies, determine whether current policies offer adequate coverage, and determine if a captive will help them face the next worst-case scenario.

Responding to Litigation Hold Notices

Posted on by

The purpose of a litigation hold is to preserve relevant information when an organization reasonably believes this information can lead to an investigation or litigation. The information to be preserved can be documents, equipment and/or electronic information or materials that may be relevant to a lawsuit or an investigation, depending on your industry. If relevant documents or information are lost, altered or destroyed, the company could suffer serious legal consequences.

The spoliation of evidence is “the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.” The maximum penalty for destroying or concealing evidence is either six months in a county jail or a fine up to $1,000, or both. For example, spoliation can occur when documents are shredded, emails erased, physical evidence is sold, destroyed or hidden and otherwise rendered unavailable for trial. It is the company’s duty to take all reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant information.

The risk professional’s role is vital—he or she may be aware of an incident that might give rise to a claim or suit, well before a suit is filed, sometimes even a year or more. For example, if you receive an incident report that a third-party vendor fell on your property, you would call security to see if there is video of the incident, and if so, secure a copy of that video. You would interview any witnesses, preferably on the day of the event while memories are fresh, and document the incident in their words. If the victim alleges that something caused the fall, then you should take photos of location and determine whether the pavement was wet or dry, there was debris in the aisle, what the weather conditions were, and other considerations. Once you complete the investigation, all documentation should be stored and secured.

If there is a claim that is either in a lawsuit or the company believes could later become a lawsuit, the clock starts ticking on litigation hold notices. In the United States, the law requires that companies comply with their duty to preserve evidence. Evidence is broad and can include an automobile involved in an accident; emails; a chair involved in a slip and fall; videos, voicemail, photographs or text messages; among others. The notice can involve official company files, personal files or non-official files. All information that may be relevant to the matter must be preserved.

Preserving potential evidence that the company believes may reasonably lead to a lawsuit or investigation takes a coordinated effort that can involve legal, risk management, IT, HR, compliance, engineering, security and any other department.

If you are an employee who may have information pertinent to investigation or lawsuit, you would be considered the custodian of this information and would have a legal obligation to preserve such evidence. As custodian, the legal department or possibly a third-party administrator would instruct you to preserve the evidence. The general procedure is that you would receive a notice on a matter that could be involved in an investigation or a lawsuit. You will be required to review, comply, sign and certify a document that states you agree to preserve information that would be related to the event. There may be a requirement to return signed document within a certain amount of time from receipt, and violation may result in disciplinary action that can include termination.

The evidence required may be very specific (such as video recorded on this date), or general (like all related emails), and may include a date range. Once identified, do not destroy, alter, modify or delete documents subject to the hold notice. When the lawsuit or investigation is completed you will receive a termination and release of this obligation. The evidence may be saved as part of the company record retention program.

Risk management can play an important role in this process by storing the hold notice in the claim file, periodically reminding custodians of their obligations, involving and sending new notices for new custodians that might have evidentiary material, and notifying custodians of termination of hold notices.

‘Take-Home COVID-19’ Claims: Preparing for a Second Wave of Coronavirus Litigation

Posted on by

The Spanish Influenza epidemic came in three waves, with the first hitting in March 1918, the second in the fall and the third in the winter of 1919. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers the second wave to have been the most deadly. In the United States, well over half of the epidemic’s death toll of 675,000 occurred during the second wave. It is no surprise then that public health experts were already warning of the possibility of a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic when the world was just beginning to acknowledge that the first wave was upon it in February.

Personal injury mass litigation also comes in waves. Consider asbestos: In the first wave, individuals who worked directly with asbestos filed workers compensation claims. Workers exposed to asbestos in products filed products liability suits during the second wave. A third wave included “take-home asbestos” claims in which workers’ children and spouses sued for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos fibers taken home from work. A fourth wave is now underway with the alleged asbestos contamination of consumer talc products.

The first wave of personal injury coronavirus litigation emerged in early March when a married couple sued Princess Cruise Lines for gross negligence for placing “…profits over the safety of its passengers, crew, and the general public in continuing to operate business as usual.” Many similar individual and class action lawsuits have followed. According to an analysis by the Miami Herald, some 3,600 cruise line passengers have contracted COVID-19 and more than 100 have died. 

The situation in nursing homes is far worse. Nursing home residents account for an estimated 40% of U.S. coronavirus deaths thus far. Predictably, wrongful death suits filed by the family members of nursing home residents are surging, even as some states move to shield nursing home operators from liability. Personal injury lawsuits have also been filed against hospitals, meatpackers, restaurants, grocery stores and warehousing operations.

However, as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic subsides, personal injury litigation may subside along with it. But what if the pandemic has a second wave? Although there is a great deal of uncertainty, public health experts now believe that there is no inherent seasonality to COVID-19 itself, but they remain deeply concerned that a combination of complacency and greater indoor activity could lead to a second wave of infections in the coming months.

What would a second wave of coronavirus personal injury litigation look like? One possibility that modelers at Praedicat are considering is a wave of “take-home COVID-19” litigation arising from occupational infection, coupled with high rates of intra-family transmission. Praedicat modelers estimate that 7-9% of COVID-19 deaths in the first wave have been family members of workers in essential industries who acquired coronavirus at work. With widespread testing and improved contact tracing, take-home transmission could be relatively easy to demonstrate during a second wave. The first take-home COVID-19 lawsuits were filed in August against an electrical supply company and a meatpacking facility, and the precursors to these complaints are present in earlier lawsuits filed against Amazon and McDonald’s.

Many public health officials believe that it is entirely within our power to keep a second wave of the virus from forming while we wait for a vaccine to be developed and deployed. A unified and steadfast public health campaign is critical if we are to avoid a second wave, individual companies working to limit transmission among their workers and customers is as well. First and foremost, this means closely adhering to federal, state, and local guidelines and industry best practices regarding disinfection, screening and testing, social distancing, and the use of masks and other personal protective equipment. Employers might also work to raise awareness of take-home exposure and the risk to vulnerable older family members or those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes that have been shown to elevate the risk of life-threatening complications associated with COVID-19.  Depending on the circumstances, maintaining social distance at home may be just as critical as maintaining social distance at work.

While a second wave of the pandemic may be unlikely, some level of infection, illness, and litigation is sure to be with us until there is a vaccine. The best protection against liability is making the safety of workers and customers paramount. But risk managers need to prepare for the worst and should also be reviewing the availability of coverage for employment related coronavirus claims, including take-home exposure. The employers liability exclusion under a general liability policy, for example, might exclude claims made by the family members of workers.