Expert Analysis

• What We Know From Early Cyberinsurance Rulings

  

  Recent cyber disruption incidents, like the Crowdstrike outage and the CDK Global cyberattack this summer, highlight the necessity of understanding legal interpretations of cyberinsurance coverage — an area in which there has been little litigation thus far, say Peter Halprin and Rebecca Schwarz at Haynes Boone.

• 6 Considerations To Determine If A Cyber Incident Is Material

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's recent guidance on material cybersecurity incidents covers a range of ransomware scenarios, from a company paying a sum and regaining operations to recovering payment via cyberinsurance, but makes it clear that no single factor determines whether a cybersecurity incident is material, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Insuring Lender's Baseball Bet Leads To Major League Dispute

  

  In RockFence v. Lloyd's, a California federal court seeks to define who qualifies as a professional baseball player for purposes of an insurance coverage payout, providing an illuminating case study of potential legal issues arising from baseball service loans, say Marshall Gilinsky and Seán McCabe at Anderson Kill.

• Insurance Lessons From 11th Circ. Ruling On Policy Grammar

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in ECB v. Chubb Insurance, holding that missing punctuation didn't change the clear meaning of a professional services policy, offers policyholder takeaways about the uncertainty that can arise when courts interpret insurance policy language based on obscure grammatical canons, say Hugh Lumpkin and Garrett Nemeroff at Reed Smith.

• Ore. Insurance Litigation Is Testing The Bounds After Moody

  

  Despite the Oregon Supreme Court’s attempt to limit application of its 2023 decision in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, which for the first time awarded extracontractual damages stemming from alleged negligent claims handling, recent litigation shows Oregon insurance companies face greater exposure, says Sarah Pozzi at Cozen O’Connor.

• What's In NYDFS Guidance On Use Of AI In Insurance

  

  Matthew Gaul and Shlomo Potesky at Willkie summarize the New York Department of Financial Services' recently adopted circular letter on the use of artificial intelligence in insurance underwriting and pricing, and highlight the material changes made to it in response to comments on the draft circular letter.

• After Jarkesy, IRS Must Course-Correct On Captive Insurance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy decision has profound implications for other agencies, including the IRS, which must stop ignoring due process and curtailing congressional intent in its policing of captive insurance arrangements, says Peter Dawson at the 831(b) Institute.

• 3 Policyholder Tips After Calif. Ruling Denying D&O Coverage

  

  A California decision from June, Practice Fusion v. Freedom Specialty Insurance, denying a company's claim seeking reimbursement under a directors and officers insurance policy for its settlement with the Justice Department, highlights the importance of coordinating coverage for all operational risks and the danger of broad exclusionary policy language, says Geoffrey Fehling at Hunton.

• M&A In The AI Era: Key Deal Terms To Watch

  

  As the artificial intelligence market matures, so will due diligence needs, as M&A deals aimed at consolidation and new synergies raise unique legal and regulatory challenges, including potential antitrust and national security reviews, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Purdue Ch. 11 Ruling Reinforces Importance Of D&O Coverage

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, holding that a Chapter 11 reorganization cannot discharge claims against a nondebtor without affected claimants' consent, will open new litigation pathways surrounding corporate insolvency and increase the importance of robust directors and officers insurance, says Evan Bolla at Harris St. Laurent.

• Del. Bankruptcy Ruling Will Give D&O Insureds Nightmares

  

  In Henrich v. XL Specialty Insurance, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently found that a never-served qui tam claim had been "brought" before a D&O policy's retroactive date, thereby eliminating coverage, and creating a nightmare scenario for directors and officers policyholders facing whistleblower claims, says David Klein at Pillsbury.

• Takeaways From Justices' Redemption Insurance Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Connelly v. U.S. examines how to determine the fair market value of shares in a closely held company for estate tax purposes, and clarifies how life insurance held by the company to enable redemption of a decedent’s shares affects that calculation, says Evelyn Haralampu at Burns & Levinson.

• Reps And Warranties Insurance Considerations As M&A Slows

  

  The first six months of the year have seen increasingly favorable rates and policy terms for the representations and warranties insurance market, and policy purchasers are right to pay close attention to pricing, coverage, exclusions, structures and claims as the M&A market cools, say attorneys at Cooley.