The question of the difference between, and application of, the prior and pending litigation date (“P&P date”) and the retroactive date (“retrodate”) is a frequently visited conversation and can sometimes be difficult to decipher.
Discussions about cyber insurance policy cover and sales techniques have intensified recently, but the narrative can be high level and lacking in any real-life context.
Those of a certain vintage will recognise that ‘Difference in Conditions’ (DIC) clauses have been around for quite some time.
Anyone who has ever been involved with junior sport will know the challenges associated with keeping all those involved happy.
‘Insured capacity’ is a frequently visited subject and continues to be a central aspect in many discussions around the scope of D&O policies.
Despite a continuing increase in cyber breach events, a changing regulatory landscape (post GDPR) and a further increase in use of (and reliance on) technology, cyber insurance is still often regarded as a difficult product to sell.
In 1998, it wouldn’t have been possible to Google ‘entity cover’, because Google had only just been founded. Equally, even if you had been able to do this, there wouldn’t have been much content, given entity cover only emerged in the same year.
The case for run off on a D&O policy is well established. However, an internet search for ‘crime insurance run off’ will deliver slim pickings.
A ‘need’ is something that is necessary for an organism to live a healthy life, which, for as enthusiastic as we are about D&O insurance, is something of an ambitious claim.
The Insurance Act 2015 (“the Act”) was hailed by some as “the most profound shift in UK commercial insurance law ever”.
At the Championship play off final in 2010, Blackpool FC sold 37,000 tickets for their game against Cardiff. Seven years later, in the League Two final against Exeter, only around 5,000 tickets were sold.
The profile of litigation funding has been raised recently with the case of RBS, and there is further evidence that it is emerging as a greater threat in the event of alleged wrongdoing, whatever the nature or scale of the organisation in question.
When it comes to Cyber events, we’re not talking about “if” and “when“ any more… it’s more a case of “How“… How will an organisation deal with the situation?
The technology sector continues to grow, particularly post-Brexit as the UK strives to be a leader in technological advancement. Recent reports have suggested that the UK’s digital economy is growing faster than ever.
There have many recent articles highlighting growing automation in all industries and the loss of jobs that will follow. The insurance industry is no exception and seems to be fully in the firing line.
The emergence of ‘Social Engineering’ has shattered many organisations. In this case, the hospice was duped into believing they were taking part in an on-line virus check.
Why ‘approved’ insurers are all looking to write the traditional business from a similar perspective on the same basis, with pricing and service the only real differentiators.
When considering insuring professional service firms’, the focus tends to be on the business activities, fee income and claims experience.
Many architects PI claims don’t come from typical design errors that you might expect, but from inspection duties or project management, either during the project or post completion.
A component part of many PI policies is that they provide cover for forms of defamation (most commonly libel and slander) in the course of their business activities.
The same pattern sometimes appears in business. When things go wrong, frustrated parties can act irrationally and may say things that won’t necessarily be followed up on.
When examining diamonds, the ‘Four C’s’ method is used. A diamonds value, rarity and beauty are determined by Colour, Clarity, Carat and Cut.
‘This “triumph for access to justice” will not be welcomed by all’. So declared Supreme Court judge, Lord Reed, on ruling unanimously in favour of Unison.
The duty to defend principle is an important one, and it governs how the mechanics of a claim are handled. It describes the insurer’s obligation to provide an insured with defence to claims.
This constant legislative evolution is not to suffocate organisations, but to seek to keep them honest and to protect innocent people reliant on the future of a company, such as suppliers, manufacturers or customers.
Nearly 10 years after the introduction of The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the “Act”) was introduced, it’s possible to reflect and measure the impact on the management liability landscape.
This ‘rationalisation’ is part of a standard methodology developed by fraud investigators. It is also one aspect of the most widely accepted model for explaining why employees steal from their employers, namely the ‘fraud triangle’.
Underwriters don’t like surprises. We like the predictable and the foreseeable. Yet, every now and then, a theme emerges that wasn’t predicted or foreseen.