Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geubrpc5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gspkZ5cZ and at https://lnkd.in/gawbsMNN and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4809
Many companies find that a single policy of liability insurance is inadequate and purchase multiple layers or insurance. Many times the policies follow each other’s terms and conditions, but not always. Thermoflex Waukegan obtained several lawyers of coverage but did not require the terms and conditions of each policy to be the same.
In Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc., Nos. 23-1521, 23-1578, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (May 17, 2024) reviewed the trial court decision.
Thermoflex Waukegan required hourly workers to use hand prints to clock in and out. This led to a claim that doing so without workers’ written consent, and using a third party to process the data, violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 to 14/20 (BIPA or the Act).
THE TRIAL COURT
The trial court concluded that an exclusion in the Basic policy renders it inapplicable to any claim based on the Act. The exclusion provides that the insurance does not apply to claims arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit card information, health information or any other type of nonpublic information.
ANALYSIS
Thermoflex maintained that this policy is ambiguous because the exclusion mentions patents, which are public. True, the list contains mismatched items. But it can’t create ambiguity about either the opening phrase of the exclusion: “any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information” or the catchall “any other type of nonpublic information.”
The Seventh Circuit found it was enough that the exclusion in this policy does not have a flaw.
DUTY TO DEFEND
The Excess and Umbrella policy, on the other hand, has two parts. Coverage U (for “Umbrella”) lacks an exclusion relating to nonpublic information. It does not matter what Coverage U includes; the parties agree that it covers BIPA claims unless something excludes coverage. The trial judge found that none of the three arguably applicable exclusions to Coverage U is so clear that it forecloses a duty to provide Thermoflex with a defense in the state-court suit.
The third exclusion, which the parties call the “ERP exclusion” (for “employment-related practices”) bars coverage of injury arising out of: a) refusal to employ that person; b) termination of employment of that person; or c) coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, malicious prosecution, discrimination, sexual misconduct, or other employment-related practices, policies, acts, or omissions directed towards that person. Parts (a) and (b) of this exclusion don’t have anything to do with BIPA claims. Mitsui relied on part (c) contending that collecting and processing handprints to determine how much time an employee spends at work is an “employment-related practice”. The Seventh Circuit concluded that a general policy requiring all hourly workers to place their hands on a scanner is an employment-related practice but is not “directed towards” any given employee. It is just a term or condition of employment, and this exclusion taken as a whole is not concerned with the terms and conditions of employment so it does not prevent coverage for a defense.
The Umbrella policy provides for defense and indemnity only after underlying insurance (and deductibles, which the policies call self-insured retentions) has been exhausted.
Because Thermoflex has at least one other policy that applies to the BIPA claims the duty to defend does exist under the Umbrella does not begin until the limits of that policy (plus deductibles) have been exhausted.
With that proviso-which is part of the district court’s decision and judgment, Mitsui owes Thermoflex a defense under the Umbrella policy.
ZALMA OPINION
When primary or basic insurance policies provided limited coverages and an umbrella provides more expansive coverage, the duty to defend applies to the umbrella insurer once a primary or basic insurer expends its limits plus self-insured retentions. The decision eliminated coverage for some insurers and found a duty to defend exists for other coverages. To avoid such a result many insurers who write umbrella policies follow the basic insurer’s policy terms and conditions. Mitsui didn’t and must provide a defense under the umbrella policy.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
