An insurer in Washington could not eliminate its coverage obligation based on its insured’s recovery from a third party. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., et al., No. 82704-9-I, 2022 WL 17246715 (Wash. Ct. App., Nov. 28, 2022). And in an Illinois case, an insurer could not refuse to cover its insured simply because its insured was able to deduct part of its settlement payment (which the insurer had refused to cover) from its tax obligation. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Dept., Chancery Div., 2019 CH 14483 (Nov. 28, 2022). In both cases, the courts did not have any sympathy for insurers that refused to perform under their insurance policies in the first place and then tried to take advantage of their insureds’ recoveries or reductions in liabilities. And the courts were intent on holding the insurers to the plain language of the policies and the promises they had made to the insureds.
In Washington, T-Mobile purchased a liability policy from Steadfast that covered data breaches. The policy had a $10 million self-insured retention and a $15 million limit on top. A T-Mobile vendor – Experian – suffered a data breach, and T-Mobile was hit with class actions, individual lawsuits, and state and federal regulator inquiries as a result. T-Mobile incurred $17.3 million in costs and expenses related to the breach. When T-Mobile sought coverage, Steadfast denied the claim arguing that T-Mobile’s...
The legal representatives of Awerco Construction Limited have issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Ministry of Health, demanding an immediate retraction and apology over a press release concerning th...