When is a company responsible for an employee’s use of their own car as part of their job? The answer seems like it should be straightforward, but it can get complicated in the right circumstances.
In most civil cases, courts are careful to ensure that plaintiffs cannot benefit from a double recovery. That is to say, plaintiffs do not get to recover for the same injury twice. The purpose of a negligence lawsuit is to restore a person to the state they were in prior to suffering their injuries by compensating them for those injuries. This is one reason why insurance companies retain rights of subrogation.
Given the relative newness of cyber insurance policies, comparatively little case law exists interpreting these policies in the context of claims. Courts have sometimes struggled with how to interpret unique policy provisions in the context of variations of computer fraud. While some courts have taken highly technical approaches to the language contained in the policy, other courts have taken a more relaxed approach based on the understanding of the parties. A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights these issues. Principle Solutions Group, LLC v. Ironhorse Indemnity, Inc. tackled a claim dispute between an insured business and an insurance company involving a cyber claim.
Claims made insurance coverage can create some confusing issues. A claims made policy covers claims that are made against the policy during the period of the policy’s effective dates. This is in distinction to an occurrence policy, which covers claims based on the policy in effect when the incident giving rise to the claim occurred.
Workers compensation is often defined as an exclusive remedy for employees injured on the job. Like with all laws however, there are exceptions. Intentional injuries have long existed as one of those exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule for workers’ compensation. Now, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has the potential to substantially expand that exception, leaving certain safety-indifferent employers facing greater exposure to lawsuits when an employee is injured.
Emissions are a big issue in the transportation industry. As environmental regulators seek to drive down total emissions due to concerns over climate change and air quality, the industry must respond with improved engineering and try to balance the various costs of increased regulation. It is highly unlikely that the scope of these regulations or their costs will decrease over the coming decade.
Ransomware attacks have increased in frequency over the past few years. They now rank as the second most frequent type of claim against cyber insurance policies. Experts estimate that a new business is hit with a ransomware attack every fourteen seconds. For 2019, early information is showing that the frequency of ransomware attacks may be decreasing. This seemingly positive trend comes with two significant drawbacks however.
Workers compensation is supposed to protect employers from lawsuits brought by their employees. In exchange for a system of a no fault liability for on the job injuries, employers secure freedom from negligence lawsuits brought by employees that might yield much higher payouts. This protection, however, is not absolute. Like with any rule, there are exceptions.
As more and more states legalize marijuana use for recreational and medicinal purposes, employers face a significant conundrum. Employers have to decide how to treat positive marijuana tests within their business. For those employers in safety-sensitive fields, ensuring that employees can pass drug tests is necessary for continued operations and limiting liability.
Cyber incidents and cyber practices are testing the boundaries of the law in numerous unique ways. The length of most litigation and the relative newness of cyber technology means that many of the claims and legal principles governing those claims are still working their way through the court system. The high cost of litigation sends many of those claims to settlement talks without a firm decision to guide future cases.