Innovation Insurance Group https://innovationinsurancegroup.com Sat, 13 Jul 2019 17:18:11 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.4 9th CIRCUIT HOLDS WAR EXCLUSIONS DO NOT APPLY TO HAMAS 2014 ATTACKS IN ISRAEL (POLICYHOLDER EXPERT, TY SAGALOW, WIDELY QUOTED) https://innovationinsurancegroup.com/9th-circuit-holds-war-exclusions-do-not-apply-to-hamas-2014-attacks-in-israel-policyholder-expert-ty-sagalow-widely-quoted/ Sat, 13 Jul 2019 17:18:11 +0000 http://innovationinsurancegroup.com/?p=4825 (July 12, 2019) In Universal Cable Productions v. Atlantic Speciality Insurance Company, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision which had held that the policy’s war exclusions applied. The decision affirms, at least in California, that words in an insurance policy can have “special meaning” as argued by the policyholder’s attorneys and its insurance expert, Ty Sagalow.

The decision referenced Universal’s insurance expert several times in its decision:

With regard to the record, Universal’s insurance industry expert stated that under insurance industry custom, “an underwriter cannot merge the two concepts and say that ‘an act of terrorism’ can be also an ‘act of war,’” because “if the policy does not contain a terrorism exclusion, there is a reasonable expectation that acts of terrorism by a known terrorist organization, regardless of however else they may be characterized, will be covered.” Atlantic did not rebut this argument; nevertheless, the district court did not consider Universal’s expert testimony regarding the special meaning of “war” in the insurance context. 

….

Third, Universal’s unrebutted expert testimony notes that the current customary usage of “war” in the insurance industry was developed gradually after the 9/11 attacks (and related litigation) to distinguish between acts of war and acts of terror in the insurance context. 

 

To view the full decision click here.

 

]]> Arbitration Award in Favor of Policyholder Results in Limits Loss plus interest for non-shaving D&O Excess Insurer https://innovationinsurancegroup.com/policyholder-arbitration-award-results-in-limits-loss-plus-interest-for-non-shaving-do-excess-insurer/ Mon, 04 Mar 2019 22:21:38 +0000 http://innovationinsurancegroup.com/?p=4262 JANUARY 2019.  An arbitration panel decided in favor of a corporate policyholder in a claim brought against an excess D&O carrier who refused to join a 90% shaving settlement.  The underlying claim arose from a multi-billion bankruptcy reorganization which prompted multiple noteholder and other lawsuits and claims.  All but one carrier settled the underlying claims for an amount in excess of $100 million.  The lone dissenting carrier argued that there was no coverage under its policy for several reasons including a lack of exhaustion of the underlying limits, the definition of Securities Claim and application of the policy’s allocation provision.

Adopting the arguments of policyholder’s expert witness, Ty Sagalow, the panel concluded that the claim was fully covered under the excess insurers policy resulting in the excess carrier paying 100% of its limit (rather than the 90% in the declined shaving settlement agreement) plus $1.4 million in interest.

 

]]>