More Insurance Coverage

Expert Analysis

• 2nd Circ. Reinsurance Ruling Misconstrues English Law

  

  The Second Circuit's finding in Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Equitas Insurance, that London-based reinsurer Equitas owed coverage for losses outside the policy period, stems from that court's misinterpretation of English law on reinsurance policy construction, says Christopher Foster at Holman Fenwick.

• Firm Tips For Helping New Lawyers Succeed Post-Pandemic

  

  Ten steps can help firms significantly enhance the experience of attorneys who started their careers in the coronavirus pandemic era, including facilitating opportunities for cross-firm connection, which can ultimately help build momentum for business development, says Lana Manganiello at Equinox Strategy Partners.

• 6th Circ. Judge Correctly ID'd ERISA Civil Procedure Conflict

  

  While the Sixth Circuit in Tranbarger v. Lincoln Life & Annuity recently affirmed a ruling that denied the plaintiff's disability benefits, one judge's concurrence should be commended for arguing that adjudication of such Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases fundamentally contradicts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Prepping Your Business Ahead Of Affirmative Action Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on whether race should play a role in college admissions could potentially end affirmative action, and companies will need a considered approach to these circumstances that protects their brand power and future profits, and be prepared to answer tough questions, say Nadine Blackburn at United Minds and Eric Blankenbaker at Weber Shandwick.

• What Banks Can Glean From FSB Climate Risk Report

  

  Although a recent Financial Stability Board report doesn't aim to provide specific guidance to financial institutions on how to incorporate climate-related metrics into their frameworks, it may nonetheless be valuable given the general lack of comparative data on evolving climate-related compensation practices elsewhere, say attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell.

• Cannabis Supercenters: Key Benefits And Legal Issues

  

  Barstow, California’s novel plan to convert an abandoned mall into a cannabis supercenter could offer a potential blueprint for cannabis companies to thrive in a saturated market and for communities to repurpose underutilized retail spaces — but certain financing, zoning and leasing issues will need to be assessed, says Christopher Gordon at Fox Rothschild.

• Challenging Standing In Antitrust Class Actions: Injury-In-Fact

  

  As demonstrated in recent cases, the classic injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing claimed in most antitrust suits is economic harm — and while concrete harm satisfies the requirement, litigants may still be able to challenge whether economic injury has occurred, say Michael Hamburger and Holly Tao at White & Case.

• What ACA Preventive Care Ruling Means For Employers

  

  Though a Texas federal court's recent ruling in Braidwood v. Becerra paves the way for employers to reimpose cost-sharing requirements on preventive care, companies considering making these changes to their group health and welfare plans should first analyze the financial and social impacts, says Rachel Shim at Holland & Knight.

• Seeking IRS Accountability For Faulty Microcaptive Notice

  

  Like the taxpayers in Standard Insurances v. U.S. seeking to expand earlier wins in microcaptive insurance cases that limit IRS use of improperly obtained information, others should consider ways to hold the agency accountable and provide incentive for it to follow the law going forward, says Joshua Smeltzer at Gray Reed.

• AmEx Ruling Proves A Double-Edged Sword In Labor Antitrust

  

  Though the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Ohio v. American Express was a defense victory, both the plaintiff and defense bars have learned to use the case's holdings to their advantage, with particularly uncertain implications for labor antitrust cases, say Lauren Weinstein and Robert Chen at MoloLamken.

• Ch. 11 Ruling Stresses 5th Circ. Courts' Asset Sale Deference

  

  A Texas federal court recently rejected a challenge to Fieldwood Energy’s Chapter 11 plan by several surety bond companies, serving as a reminder that courts within the Fifth Circuit give deference to the finality of asset sales where a stay of the applicable order has not been obtained, say Jonathan Lozano and Mark Dendinger at Bracewell.

• The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

  

  A Pennsylvania federal court's recent decision in Stein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance illustrates what happens when ERISA plan terms are unclear, and why the contra proferentem principle should be applied uniformly in all ERISA cases, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• No Surprises Act Gives Plan Sponsors Savings Opportunities

  

  Under the No Surprises Act, the potential savings for an ERISA group health plan and its participants are significant, and sponsors should focus on the negotiation of third-party administrator service agreements to avoid exposure to breach of fiduciary claims for payment of excessive fees, say attorneys at Hall Benefits.