Timely Notice

Sarah Delaney, a Buffalo partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services practice group, joins the show to discuss the MCS-90 endorsement. Sarah provides background on the endorsement and  dispels common misconceptions about the form, including whether the form itself provides insurance coverage, if exemptions exist for certain motor carriers, and whether cancellation of the underlying policy terminates MCS-90 obligations. Sarah also talks about practical duty to defend considerations under the MCS-90 endorsement.  Finally, Sarah discusses how the form affects intrastate transportation regulations. 

Rich Savage, Director of Complex Claims – Cyber/Tech/Media at Rockville Risk Management, shares useful insights into the world of cybersecurity, especially regarding the dramatic increase in credential theft and the vulnerabilities associated with use of Office365. Rich explains how businesses are particularly vulnerable to credential theft since fraudsters are now able to use trusted email addresses in perpetrating their phishing schemes. To help ward against these risks, Rich offers recommendations for businesses, as well as strategies cyberinsurers can employ in incentivizing cybersecurity.

Tom Bernier, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Baltimore Office and a member of the firm’s Toxic Torts and Environmental Practice Group, provides insight into the legal consequences of the growth in legionella diagnoses, which commonly take the form of Legionnaires’ disease and Pontiac fever.  Tom starts by providing background on legionella, an extremely severe form of pneumonia caused by a bacterial infection.  Tom further explains how legionella is generally spread through poorly-maintained water systems and how the elderly and those with depressed immune systems are at highest risk. Tom notes that certain businesses and professional service providers face significant exposure in connection with legionella litigation and related health department inspections and regulations.  Tom concludes by highlighting potential insurance coverage challenges businesses confront when dealing with legionella claims.

Rotem Iram, CEO of At-Bay, Inc., sits down with the podcast for a two-part series to discuss the present-day limits and the future outlook for cyber risk modeling. To start, Rotem breaks down the fundamental differences between underwriting of traditional insurance versus insurance for cyber risk. To address this issue, he opines that additional tools are needed to assess the particularities of cyber risk. Rotem also explains how the nature of insurance is well-suited to spotlight and addressing cyber threats. Rotem concludes by highlighting the three most important questions companies need to ask before purchasing cyberinsurance.

Rotem Iram, CEO of At-Bay, Inc., sits down with the podcast for a two-part series to discuss the present-day limits and the future outlook for cyber risk modeling. To start, Rotem breaks down the fundamental differences between underwriting of traditional insurance versus insurance for cyber risk. To address this issue, he opines that additional tools are needed to assess the particularities of cyber risk. Rotem also explains how the nature of insurance is well-suited to spotlight and addressing cyber threats. Rotem concludes by highlighting the three most important questions companies need to ask before purchasing cyberinsurance.

Lewis Collins, a partner in Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig’s Tampa office, joins the show to discuss why comparative or reverse bad faith should be considered as part of extracontractual liability causes of action. Lewis describes common scenarios that justify apportioning fault in bad faith lawsuits. Using case law from several different jurisdictions, Lewis explores the evolution and current viability of the comparative bad faith defense. Lewis also talks about how, even in states where there is no comparative bad faith, courts recognize a requirement for an insured to act fairly with an insurer.  Finally, he explains what insurers can do to avoid attempts to manipulate the claims and litigation process.  

Mike Katzen, a New York partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Employment and Labor practice group, discusses the contours and requirements of Title III of the ADA. He debunks a common misconception about whether certain structures are grandfathered in under the ADA. Mike then explains the criteria for measuring ADA compliance and the penalties for Title III violations. Mike concludes with his thoughts on the best ways to meet accessibility requirements and avoid the growing number of repeat Title III plaintiffs. 

Jeremy Kerman, a Chicago-based coverage attorney at Walker Wilcox Matousek, sits down with the podcast to break down recent trends in coverage litigation over claims for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Jeremy first describes the mechanics of the TCPA and how it continues to have significance in the age of text messages. A trio of recent decisions are also discussed to illustrate recent arguments forwarded by insurers and insureds/claimants. Jeremy concludes by opining on what the future holds for TCPA coverage litigation.   

Larry Mason, a Goldberg Segalla partner, discusses insurance coverage for the various segments of the cannabis industry. Larry explains how the current regulatory environment has caused insurers to cautiously expand risk offerings to cannabis-related businesses. Larry then discusses judicial conflicts emanating from cannabis coverage. In particular, Larry analyzes the recent decision in K.V.G. Properties, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Co., 900 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2018), which discussed the applicability of a criminal acts exclusion to a cannabis cultivation business. Larry concludes by identifying key considerations for insurers and businesses seeking to operate in the cannabis industry.

Mike Lettiero, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Hartford Office, discusses Karas v. Liberty Insurance Corp. and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s agreement to answer a certified question from a federal district court concerning what constitutes “collapse.” Mike first outlines the background behind Karas and its importance in Connecticut due to a rash of crumbling foundations in certain parts of the state. Mike then explains how the Supreme Court will interpret “collapse,” considering the question against the backdrop of analogous case law nationwide. Mike concludes with an analysis of the significance of Karas in Connecticut and elsewhere given the paucity of case law on what constitutes “collapse,” particularly in the first-party context.