News & Resources

In this week’s issue, Morrison Mahoney partner Michael Aylward analyzes the significance of a 93A bad faith case that the firm won last week in the First Circuit as well important new rulings addressing when insureds put privileged communications “at issue” and when the “offense” of malicious prosecution occurs for purposes of triggering Coverage B.

In this week’s issue of Insurance Law, Boston partner Michael Aylward discusses decisions from the Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Washington courts, recent developments in the insurance industry, must see CLE's, and more.

In this week’s issue, Boston partner Michael Aylward discusses several interesting new legal opinions, including two addressing novel exhaustion issues. The Fifth Circuit ruled that a primary insurer may exhaust its duty to defend by issuing a payment to a tort claimant wherein the claimant promises not to execute against the insured in the amount of the payment, rejecting the excess insurer’s argument that there must be a formal release to effect exhaustion. In Florida, a federal judge has ruled that it was appropriate to look outside the four corners of the Complaint to consider an affidavit from the insurer proving that it had earlier exhausted its limits by settling claims against its named insured and therefore had no continuing duty with respect to the defense of an additional insured.

In the latest edition of the Cybersecurity Newsletter, our team discusses hacking activity involving the popular Disney+ app on its very first day live, the projected financial impact of the California Consumer Privacy Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, a recent FTC Consent Agreement arising out of the “unfairness” of InfoTrax’s allegedly unsatisfactory data security practices, cyber risk associated with expansion in the maritime industry, and more.

In this week’s issue, Morrison Mahoney partner Michael Aylward discusses a significant new Maryland appellate ruling adopting an expansive interpretation of the defense duties of liability insurers in a construction case as well as a new California decision rejecting an argument by Zurich that a dispute concerning the payment of Cumis counsel fees are not prohibited by state anti-SLAPP statutes.