Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In two recent decisions, the Montana Supreme Court held that an insurance company seeking to deny coverage on the grounds of a policyholder’s untimely notice must establish that it was prejudiced by the timing of notice. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v. Greytak, ___ P.3d ___, 2015 WL 3444507, at *2-*4 (Mont. May 29, 2015); Estate of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins. Co. , __ P.3d __, 2014 WL 8863145, at *4-*7 (Mont. May 20, 2015). In reaching these results, the court held that Montana’s broad anti-forfeiture statutes support this notice-prejudice rule. The court’s reliance on these statutes ‘ which are similar to statutes found in several other states ‘ may support policyholders in the future who are seeking to avoid forfeiture of insurance coverage not only for allegedly late notice, but also for alleged breaches of other policy conditions.
Cyber Security Challenges and Potential Uninsured Exposures
This article provides a broad overview of cyber security challenges, and the insurance coverage (or lack thereof) for the financial impact of those cyber security challenges.
Fourth Circuit Finds GCL Insurer Owed Duty to Defend Cyber-Related Claims
This two-part article constitutes an overall review of ACC clauses in first-party property policies and their application across the United States. Most courts have found ACC clauses to be enforceable, although a handful of states have held that insurers may not contractually opt out of the state's causation doctrines, i.e. , efficient proximate cause or concurrent causation. We conclude the article herein.
Editor's NoteDear Readers: It is with the deepest regret that we must inform you that this issue of The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin will be the last.…
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
