I’m just back from Orlando where I had the opportunity to speak at an ABA conference on business interruption insurance.  During the talk, I referred to a case I often cite, Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565, 1986 Ariz. LEXIS 253 (1986).  For me, the key quote from the case is:

“In

New York’s highest court just handed down an interesting decision in Fieldston Property Owners Ass’n v. Hermitage Ins. Co.  The case involved an underlying suit for “injurious falsehood,” and the question of who was obligated to provide a defense – the CGL carrier, the D&O carrier, or both?  The CGL policy stated that its coverage was

In the last post, we took a look at the Dictiomatic case, in which the policyholder took a beating for overreaching on a business interruption claim.  Turnabout being fair play, let’s now have a look at a recent case in which the insurance company got thumped in the business interruption arena.  The case is Amerigraphics

I’m getting ready to speak at an ABA-TIPS conference on the topic of business interruption insurance.  Given the number of horrible tragedies we’ve been through in the past decade (prayers for all those affected by the earthquake in Japan), it’s certainly a timely subject. 

To cut to the chase:  Business interruption insurance is designed to

There’s a disturbing article over at Bloomberg about the (pretty horrendous) games insurance companies play with respect to policies governed by ERISA.  The ironic thing is that the ERISA statute was designed to protect workers.  But the so-called “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review sets such a low bar that claims often get denied for reasons invented