This year, the FLA is pleased to present its 25th Annual Conference and Anniversary Celebration. Program Chairs Michael Keeley and Matt Kalin have assembled a series of timely presentations, covering topics as diverse as liability and recovery in respect of email-based claims; disputes arising from the interplay between riders and other policy provisions; and
On August 6, 2019 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in C.S. McCrossan Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company. The decision addresses a host of coverage issues, including the application of the “Authorized Representative” exclusion and the definitions of “Subsidiary” and “Contractual Independent Contractor.” The case is instructive for fidelity claims and underwriting professionals, as well as brokers and corporate risk managers.
In the recent decision of Starr Insurance Holdings, Inc. v. United States Specialty Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the State of New York held that the termination condition applied to terminate coverage in respect of losses allegedly caused to an insured insurance company (itself a holder of a fidelity bond issued by two other carriers) by the insured’s managing general agent (“MGA”)/broker. Finding that the insured knew of the MGA’s dishonest acts prior to obtaining fidelity coverage, the Court applied the bond’s termination condition to hold that coverage terminated in respect of the MGA as of the inception of the bond.…
On November 19, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey released its decision in Posco Daewoo America Corp. v. Allnex USA, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. The decision represents a “sequel” to the Court’s 2017 decision arising out of the same claim (see our November 6, 2017 post). The case features an interesting twist on the usual social engineering fraud claim scenario, in that it was the intended payee of the funds, not the payor, which asserted a claim under its own crime policy for recovery of funds which the payor had been duped into paying to an impostor. This type of claim has been referred to as a “reverse” social engineering fraud claim. Numerous such claims have been advanced by intended payees recently, typically when it comes to light that the payor did not maintain its own social engineering fraud coverage.
The 2017 decision dismissed the claim of the insured, Posco Daewoo America Corp. (“Daewoo”), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (this is similar to Ontario’s Rule 21.01(1)(b)). However, the Court granted leave to Daewoo to re-plead its claim. In so doing, Daewoo made some novel arguments concerning the scope of the ownership condition.
Blaneys partners David Wilson and Chris McKibbin will attend the joint FLA/ABA FSLC Conference in Philadelphia. The FLA Conference on November 7 has a solid emphasis on cybercrime, while also addressing other important contemporary issues. Program Chairs Theresa A. Gooley and Samuel J. Arena, Jr. have assembled a series of timely presentations, covering the impact…
In the recent decision of CP Food & Beverage, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that coverage was not available under a crime policy where the insured’s employees had defrauded the insured’s customers through misuse of customer credit cards. The decision makes important findings regarding the appropriate test for “direct loss” causation in a crime policy, and reaffirms the general principle that crime policies are not intended to indemnify insureds for their vicarious liability arising from employees’ theft of third parties’ property.…
Jump To: The Facts | The Decision | The Conclusion
On April 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Aqua Star (USA) Corp. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (see our July 19, 2016 post). The decision offers guidance to fidelity insurers with respect to the application of the “authorized entry” exclusion found in the base wording of many commercial crime policies (sometimes referred to as the “authorized access” exclusion), and illustrates how this exclusion may operate in the context of a social engineering fraud loss.
JUMP TO: THE FACTS | THE CUMIS COVERAGE | THE CONCLUSION
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York released its decision in Hudson Heritage Federal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., dismissing the insured credit union’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
According to its amended complaint, the insured had granted several vehicle finance loans on the strength of photocopies or electronic copies of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) title documents. The copies received by the insured had been falsified to misrepresent the names of the owners/sellers. The Court found that the insured’s complaint failed to plead that its losses had resulted directly from forgery or alteration of an “instrument”, which the bond in issue defined as an “original … document of title”.
Jump To: The Facts | The Ownership Condition | The Conclusion
On November 20, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Cooper Industries, Limited v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. The Court applied a crime policy’s ownership condition in ruling that the insured did not have coverage for the loss of funds incurred when an investment entity to which it had provided funds in exchange for promissory notes collapsed due to the entity’s principals’ Ponzi scheme.
The dispute arose out of the same Ponzi scheme that gave rise to the decision of the Eighth Circuit in 3M Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (see our June 13, 2017 post). Although there are important factual distinctions between the two losses, the Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion as the Eighth Circuit in finding that the insured had not demonstrated that it owned the property in issue.
Jump To: The Facts | The Travelers Coverage | The Conclusion
On October 31, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey released its decision in Posco Daewoo America Corp. v. Allnex USA, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. This case features an interesting twist on the usual social engineering fraud claim scenario, in that it was the intended payee of the funds, not the payor, which asserted a claim under its own crime policy for recovery of funds which the payor had been duped into paying to an impostor. This type of claim has been referred to as a “reverse” social engineering fraud claim. Numerous such claims have been advanced by intended payees recently, typically when it comes to light that the payor did not maintain its own social engineering fraud coverage.
The Court applied traditional concepts of ownership in finding that the intended payee did not “own” the funds at any time, and thus could not establish that its claim met the ownership condition in its policy.