The Law

Legal Spotlight

A look at the latest decisions impacting the industry.
By: | March 3, 2017 • 4 min read

Insured-Vs.-Insured Exclusion Cited in Dismissal

Cheryl Sullivan became a member of the JEI board of directors in April 2013, upon the death of her father, Jerry Paulson, who had expanded a small butcher shop into JEI, a retail and grocery store chain in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Florida. Sullivan redeemed her 28 percent of all company shares a few months later, after which she and her daughters sued the company, saying that JEI’s directors “designed to lower the value of their shares.”

Advertisement




Sullivan and her daughters reached a confidential settlement with JEI. The company sought coverage for the payment under a directors and officers policy issued by U.S. Specialty Insurance Co.

The insurer rejected the claim and JEI filed suit. After the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled against JEI, it appealed to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Jan. 11, the appeals court agreed with U.S. Specialty. The two main issues related to the policy’s insured-versus-insured exclusion and its allocation clause. The insured-versus-insured exclusion barred coverage for any suit brought by a former director of the company.

But Sullivan’s daughters were not former directors, and the allocation clause provided that losses should be allocated between covered and uncovered claims. The appeals court ruled that Sullivan was “an active participant” in the lawsuit as well as its “driving force.” Because of that, the policy’s allocation provision for coverage as long as a director or officer “did not solicit, assist or actively participate in the lawsuit” did not apply to Sullivan or her daughters.

Scorecard: The insurance company does not need to indemnify JEI for the settlement payment.

Takeaway: The allocation clause “does not restore coverage for a suit brought with the active participation of an insured person,” the court ruled.

Bird Flu Transmission is Crucial to Case

Farms in minnesota from eight to 20 miles away from rembrandt Enterprises’ egg-producing facilities euthanized their chickens due to avian bird flu in 2015. In April and May of that year, Rembrandt’s flock was infected and a month later, more than 9 million birds were euthanized.

Rembrandt filed a claim with Illinois Union Insurance Co., which had issued a premises pollution liability insurance policy. The policy insured Rembrandt’s farms from the “discharge, dispersal, release, escape, migration or seepage of any … irritant, contaminant, or pollutant … on, in, into, or upon [covered] land and structures.”

The carrier denied the claim, saying the flu was not a contaminant and that coverage excluded losses relating to “naturally occurring materials” unless they were present because of human activities. Illinois Union Insurance later conceded the flu was a contaminant, but said there was no proof that human activities led to the bird flu being transmitted to Rembrandt’s farms. Rembrandt filed suit, claiming the carrier breached its policy. The carrier sought to dismiss the case.

An infectious diseases expert on behalf of Rembrandt said the bird flu was “detected in air samples taken inside and outside infected poultry houses,” and that the flock depopulations at nearby farms created a “virus cloud” that carried the flu to Rembrandt’s farms.

On Jan. 12, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota refused to dismiss the case, ruling further hearings were needed.

Advertisement




“Despite extensive briefing, on this record, the Court is simply not in a position to determine as a matter of law how the bird flu spread to Rembrandt’s farms and, accordingly, neither party is entitled to summary judgment,” the court ruled.

Scorecard: No decision was issued on whether the farms will collect for the loss of more than 9 million birds.

Takeaway: While the disease may be spread by air, it is not clear whether it was aided by human activity.

Court: Policy Excludes $64 Million Claim

Imprudent loans, resulting in more than $64 million in losses, caused the California Department of Financial Institutions to close Security Pacific Bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), which was named receiver, filed suit against BancInsure Inc., seeking coverage for losses “arising from the negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by” the failed bank’s former directors and officers.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California concluded that the D&O policy issued by BancInsure covered the FDIC’s claims. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision on Jan. 10.

The D&O policy excluded coverage for losses arising from legal actions brought by “any successor, trustee, assignee or receiver” of the bank. The FDIC argued that it is “not a ‘receiver’ within the meaning of the insured-versus-insured exclusion because, by statute, it has a ‘unique role’ representing ‘multiple interests,’ ”including shareholders and depositors. It pointed to an exception to the exclusion for “a shareholder’s derivative action,” which could be filed against the failed bank by shareholders who are not insureds under the D&O policy.

The appeals court rejected that argument. “We think the term ‘receiver’ is clear and unambiguous and includes the FDIC in its role as receiver of Security Pacific,” it ruled, ordering the lower court to dismiss the case.

Scorecard: The FDIC will not be able to collect more than $64 million in losses from BancInsure.

Takeaway: The right of the FDIC to bring a shareholder derivative action was secondary to the FDIC’s right to bring the same claims directly as the failed bank’s receiver.

Anne Freedman is managing editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Emerging Risks

Stadium Safety

Soft targets, such as sports stadiums, must increase measures to protect lives and their business.
By: | January 10, 2018 • 8 min read

Acts of violence and terror can break out in even the unlikeliest of places.

Look at the 2013 Boston Marathon, where two bombs went off, killing three and injuring dozens of others in a terrorist attack. Or consider the Orlando Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 58 wounded. Most recently in Las Vegas, a gunman killed 58 and injured hundreds of others.

Advertisement




The world is not inherently evil, but these evil acts still find a way into places like churches, schools, concerts and stadiums.

“We didn’t see these kinds of attacks 20 years ago,” said Glenn Chavious, managing director, global sports & recreation practice leader, Industria Risk & Insurance Services.

As a society, we have advanced through technology, he said. Technology’s platform has enabled the message of terror to spread further faster.

“But it’s not just with technology. Our cultures, our personal grievances, have brought people out of their comfort zones.”

Chavious said that people still had these grievances 20 years ago but were less likely to act out. Tech has linked people around the globe to other like-minded individuals, allowing for others to join in on messages of terror.

“The progression of terrorist acts over the last 10 years has very much been central to the emergence of ‘lone wolf’ actors. As was the case in both Manchester and Las Vegas, the ‘lone wolf’ dynamic presents an altogether unique set of challenges for law enforcement and event service professionals,” said John

Glenn Chavious, managing director, global sports & recreation practice leader, Industria Risk & Insurance Services

Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton.

As more violent outbreaks take place in public spaces, risk managers learn from and better understand what attackers want. Each new event enables risk managers to see what works and what can be improved upon to better protect people and places.

But the fact remains that the nature and pattern of attacks are changing.

“Many of these actions are devised in complete obscurity and on impulse, and are carried out by individuals with little to no prior visibility, in terms of behavioral patterns or threat recognition, thus making it virtually impossible to maintain any elements of anticipation by security officials,” said Tomlinson.

With vehicles driving into crowds, active shooters and the random nature of attacks, it’s hard to gauge what might come next, said Warren Harper, global sports & events practice leader, Marsh.

Public spaces like sporting arenas are particularly vulnerable because they are considered ‘soft targets.’ They are areas where people gather in large numbers for recreation. They are welcoming to their patrons and visitors, much like a hospital, and the crowds that attend come in droves.

NFL football stadiums, for example, can hold anywhere from 25,000 to 93,000 people at maximum capacity — and that number doesn’t include workers, players or other behind-the-scenes personnel.

“Attacks are a big risk management issue,” said Chavious. “Insurance is the last resort we want to rely upon. We’d rather be preventing it to avoid such events.”

Preparing for Danger

The second half of 2017 proved a trying few months for the insurance industry, facing hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and — unfortunately — multiple mass shootings.

The industry was estimated to take a more than $1 billion hit from the Las Vegas massacre in October 2017. A few years back, the Boston Marathon bombings cost businesses around $333 million each day the city was shut down following the attack. Officials were on a manhunt for the suspects in question, and Boston was on lockdown.

“Many of these actions are devised in complete obscurity and on impulse, and are carried out by individuals with little to no prior visibility.” — John Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton

“Fortunately, we have not had a complete stadium go down,” said Harper. But a mass casualty event at a stadium can lead to the death or injury of athletes, spectators and guests; psychological trauma; potential workers’ comp claims from injured employees; lawsuits; significant reputational damage; property damage and prolonged business interruption losses.

The physical damage, said Harper, might be something risk managers can gauge beforehand, but loss of life is immeasurable.

Advertisement




The best practice then, said Chavious, is awareness and education.

“A lot of preparedness comes from education. [Stadiums] need a risk management plan.”

First and foremost, Chavious said, stadiums need to perform a security risk assessment. Find out where vulnerable spots are, decide where education can be improved upon and develop other safety measures over time.

Areas outside the stadium are soft targets, said Harper. The parking lot, the ticketing and access areas and even the metro transit areas where guests mingle before and after a game are targeted more often than inside.

Last year, for example, a stadium in Manchester was the target of a bomb, which detonated outside the venue as concert-goers left. In 2015, the Stade de France in Paris was the target of suicide bombers and active shooters, who struck the outside of the stadium while a soccer match was held inside.

Security, therefore, needs to be ready to react both inside and outside the vicinity. Reviewing past events and seeing what works has helped risk mangers improve safety strategies.

“A lot of places are getting into table-top exercises” to make sure their people are really trained, added Harper.

In these exercises, employees from various departments come together to brainstorm and work through a hypothetical terrorist situation.

A facilitator will propose the scenario — an active shooter has been spotted right before the game begins, someone has called in a bomb threat, a driver has fled on foot after driving into a crowd — and the stadium’s staff is asked how they should respond.

“People tend to act on assumptions, which may be wrong, but this is a great setting for them to brainstorm and learn,” said Harper.

Technology and Safety

In addition to education, stadiums are ahead of the game, implementing high-tech security cameras and closed-circuit TV monitoring, requiring game-day audiences to use clear/see-through bags when entering the arena, upping employee training on safety protocols and utilizing vapor wake dogs.

Drones are also adding a protective layer.

John Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton

“Drones are helpful in surveying an area and can alert security to any potential threat,” said Chavious.

“Many stadiums have an area between a city’s metro and the stadium itself. If there’s a disturbance there, and you don’t have a camera in that area, you could use the drone instead of moving physical assets.”

Chavious added that “the overhead view will pick up potential crowd concentration, see if there are too many people in one crowd, or drones can fly overhead and be used to assess situations like a vehicle that’s in a place it shouldn’t be.”

But like with all new technology, drones too have their downsides. There’s the expense of owning, maintaining and operating the drone. Weather conditions can affect how and when a drone is used, so it isn’t a reliable source. And what if that drone gets hacked?

“The evolution of venue security protocols most certainly includes the increased usage of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), including drones, as the scope and territorial vastness provided by UAS, from a monitoring perspective, is much more expansive than ground-based apparatus,” said Tomlinson.

“That said,” he continued, “there have been many documented instances in which the intrusion of unauthorized drones at live events have posed major security concerns and have actually heightened the risk of injury to participants and attendees.”

Still, many experts, including Tomlinson, see drones playing a significant role in safety at stadiums moving forward.

“I believe the utilization of drones will continue to be on the forefront of risk mitigation innovation in the live event space, albeit with some very tight operating controls,” he said.

The SAFETY Act

In response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. Homeland Security enacted the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective

Warren Harper, global sports & events practice leader, Marsh

Technologies Act (SAFETY Act).

The primary purpose of the SAFETY Act was to encourage potential manufacturers or sellers of anti-terrorism technologies to continue to develop and commercialize these technologies (like video monitoring or drones).

There was a worry that the threat of liability in such an event would deter and prevent sellers from pursing these technologies, which are aimed at saving lives. Instead, the SAFETY Act provides incentive by adding a system of risk and litigation management.

“[The SAFETY Act] is geared toward claims arising out of acts of terrorism,” said Harper.

Bottom line: It’s added financial protection. Businesses both large and small can apply for the SAFETY designation — in fact, many NFL teams push for the designation. So far, four have reached SAFETY certification: Lambeau Field, MetLife Stadium, University of Phoenix Stadium and Gillette Stadium.

Advertisement




To become certified, reviewers with the SAFETY Act assess stadiums for their compliance with the most up-to-date terrorism products. They look at their built-in emergency response plans, cyber security measures, hiring and training of employees, among other criteria.

The process can take over a year, but once certified, stadiums benefit because liability for an event is lessened. One thing to remember, however, is that the added SAFETY Act protection only holds weight when a catastrophic event is classified as an act of terrorism.

“Generally speaking, I think the SAFETY Act has been instrumental in paving the way for an accelerated development of anti-terrorism products and services,” said Tomlinson.

“The benefit of gaining elements of impunity from third-party liability related matters has served as a catalyst for developers to continue to push the envelope, so to speak, in terms of ideas and innovation.”

So while attackers are changing their methods and trying to stay ahead of safety protocols at stadiums, the SAFETY Act, as well as risk managers and stadium owners, keep stadiums investing in newer, more secure safety measures. &

Autumn Heisler is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]