Add Kansas to the list of states recognizing that distances in time and space distinguish circumstances into multiple occurrences. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wilkins, No. 98, 2008 Kan. Sup. LEXIS 73 (Mar. 28, 2008).
Policyholders often seek discovery of carriers’ representations to reinsurers. The thinking is that if the carrier took a certain position with its reinsurers it must also take that position with its policyholders. Not so, says the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Irving Materials, Inc. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18692 (D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2008). There, the policyholder challenged a multiple-occurrence ruling on the grounds that the carrier had made a single-occurrence argument to its reinsurer. The court, however, ruled that the representations to the reinsurer were not material.
On January 25, 2008, a Southern District of Ohio magistrate found that a reservation of rights letter established an expectation of litigation that supported a work product claim. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8945 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2008). This decision will be welcomed by Insurers seeking work product protection. But, insurers should also expect that this shield will be the policyholders' sword. Policyholders will surely be arguing that reservation of rights letters trigger an expectation of litigation that requires a litigation hold. The developments in this area will be interesting to watch.
This week an intermediate appellate court in New York provided another decision rejecting an insured's attempt to avoid SIRs by bundling claims. International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 8122, *; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935 (10/30/07). The case involved workers' exposure to chemicals found in popcorn flavoring. The result, however, goes far beyond popcorn; the decision will surely be cited in other exposure cases such as asbestos.
Much of a coverage lawyer's work involves reviewing and writing letters to policyholders. To you, the real coverage lawyers of America, read Lutz v. First Financial Insurance Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21872, a Ninth Circuit decision reviewing the adequacy of a denial letter. The majority found that the insurer's denial letter was not adequate because it did not reference to specific law or facts relating to the dispute, and the policy provisions that were cited were not tied to the defense to coverage. A dissenting judge criticized the letter as "somewhat confusing and perhaps in part misleading," but he held that a letter is adequate if it provides timely notification of an intent to deny and a defense. Coverage lawyers should be mindful of these standards in preparing communications to policyholders.
Enter keywords:
