Insurance Recovery Law

Following the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978, which we covered in detail, a Chicago-based federal court recently handed another insurance coverage victory to businesses facing class actions under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that a general liability (GL) insurer had to defend its policyholders against two class action lawsuits alleging that the policyholders were selling biometric data in violation of BIPA and common law rights.
Continue Reading Illinois Court Builds on 2021 State Supreme Court Ruling to Find Further General Liability Insurance Coverage for Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) Class Actions

Businesses operating in Illinois have faced thousands of lawsuits arising under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), leading to hundreds of cases and related insurance claims. Insurance companies have aggressively denied coverage for these claims and filed litigation seeking court approval of their denials, forcing policyholders into a two-front legal war. Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court granted a major victory for businesses facing BIPA lawsuits, holding that a BIPA lawsuit alleging a wrongful sharing of biometric information fell within standard “personal or advertising injury” coverage in a commercial general liability policy and was not excluded.
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Affirms BIPA Lawsuits Are Covered by GL Policies

As previously reported in this blog, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) brought a case against a variety of insurers under 21 policy wordings seeking clarification of sample clauses because the carriers refused to pay any U.K. claims relating to COVID-19 business interruptions largely for hospitality businesses. The policyholders seem to have won most of the coverage issues, and indeed the carriers have announced that they would book significant losses.

The basic issues involved the coverage for a series of extensions (specified loss clauses) to basic Business Interruption (BI) coverage, which covered the closure of a business due to an order of a competent governmental authority based on the existence of a notifiable disease in the vicinity of the covered business. These extensions have relatively low limits under $50,000. Given these low limits, it was financially impracticable for individual policyholders in the United Kingdom to separately litigate their claims against their insurers. As such, the insurers appeared to be denying claims on the assumption that most policyholders would not be in a financial position to press their claims. The recent decision in the case brought by the FCA will now allow tens of thousands of U.K. small-business policyholders an affordable path to coverage.

Continue Reading FCA Case Provides a Win for Policyholders and Vindicates the Concept of Expedited Generalized Rulings for Small Businesses

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, hundreds of businesses of all sizes have been forced to file lawsuits against their property insurers for failing to honor their contractual obligations to provide business interruption, extra expense, civil authority, and other coverage for the substantial losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, this onslaught of litigation

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions of higher education are facing significant revenue challenges and incurring extra expenses for which their insurance programs should provide relief. Potentially covered sources of loss and damage include (1) efforts to make buildings safe for students, faculty, staff, and administrators, (2) tuition adjustments, loss of athletic and extra-curricular events revenue and related sponsorships, and (3) extra expenses and/or lost revenue related to student housing issues.

Continue Reading Higher Education COVID-19 Losses: Property and Business Interruption Insurance Policies Should Provide Relief