Insurance Coverage Notes and Developments
Posts by Rosa M. Tumialán
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Contributors
Recent Posts
- Not All Violation of Statutes Exclusions Are Created Equal
- Still Only Eight Corners?: The Texas Supreme Court Decides Richards v. State Farm
- Headline: "SXSW Disaster: Event Admits It Has No Insurance for Coronavirus Cancellation"
- Maryland Court Orders Insurance Company to Pay Ransomware Damages Under Businessowner’s Policy
- Policyholder Win Under Crime Policy for Social Engineering Scam
- Assault on the Citadel? The Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider the “Eight Corners Rule”
- Ain’t Going to Study War Exclusions No More... Or Are We? Universal Cable Productions LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co. (9th Cir., July 12 2019)
- Federal Court Rejects Effort to Skirt a Policy’s Claims-Made-and-Reported Requirement
- A Word to the Wise About Concurrent Causation
- Do TCPA Claims Trigger CGL Coverage? The California Supreme Court Agrees to Decide
Showing 2 posts by Rosa M. Tumialán.
Not All Violation of Statutes Exclusions Are Created Equal
Coverage litigation relating to liability claims arising out of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) has been relatively non-existent. One reason for this may be insurers’ reasonable conclusion that an exclusion introduced in 2006 in response to litigation arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) applies to this new genre of privacy litigation. That exclusion, generically referred as the Violation of Statutes Exclusion, was the insurance industry response to decisions from around the country finding that TCPA violations qualified as “personal injury” under liability policies. The exclusion evolved over time and now includes a catch-all provision that applies to violations of federal or state statutes or ordinances or regulations other than the enumerated statutes referenced in the exclusion—the TCPA, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The Illinois court’s opinion in Westbend Mutual Insurance Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2020 Ill.App.(1st) 191384, is an example of how important the wording of that catch-all provision is for insurers seeking to rely on it to exclude coverage for BIPA violations. Read More ›
All Stop: Ruling on the Applicability of Exclusion to BIPA Claims Delayed
The fallout from the Illinois Supreme Court’s January 25, 2019, opinion in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 19 IL 12316, continues. Rosenbach settled the dispute of who qualifies as an “aggrieved person” under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), and in doing so opened the floodgates for this litigation to proliferate. The immediate result was a sharp increase in the filing of BIPA class actions as well as the lifting of stays of the numerous cases pending that were awaiting the Rosenbach ruling. Read More ›