Insured Success Reed Smith LLP

Reed Smith insurance recovery lawyers, Richard Lewis, John Ellison and Jessica Gopiao discuss the complexities of handling insurance claims after natural disasters. This episode covers critical topics such as the nuances of replacement cost insurance, business income coverage, and the impact of wider effects of losses in mass catastrophes. They also discuss the foundational issues in property insurance, the importance of timely communication and documentation, and the role of forensic accountants and brokers in expediting claims.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello, and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues, and topics of interest affecting commercial policy holders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
Jessica: Good morning, afternoon, or whatever time it is for you, and welcome back to Insured Success. My name is Jessica Gopiao. I am a senior associate and member of the Reed Smith's Insurance Recovery Group based in both Miami and Orange County. I am here with Rich Lewis and John Ellison, and we'll let them introduce themselves before we get started. 
Richard: Hi, I'm Rich Lewis. I've been handling property and business income cases for about 30 years. Handled them from 9/11, Katrina, Rita, some of the storms in New York, and I've also written a book on business income insurance disputes that I keep updated and been writing it since 2006. 
John: Hi, everybody. I'm John Ellison. I'm a senior partner in the Philadelphia and New York offices in the firm's insurance recovery group. Along with Rich and about 80 others of us, we handle first-party property and business income losses around the globe and have been doing it as long and probably with as much success as any other firm. So hopefully some of our experience today will translate well to assist you if you ever are in the unfortunate situation of having to deal with a natural disaster insurance claim. 
Richard: All right, so just as a matter of background, we're going to be talking about first party or property insurance, and that generally covers tangible properties such as buildings and equipment and machinery and intangible property being the expectation of profit or additional costs you have to incur to keep in business. There are a number of foundational issues that come up in most property claims. The first is most people buy replacement cost insurance, And that is insurance that gives you new for old. And there is often a delta between what your property is worth when it is destroyed and how much it would cost to replace it. And what a lot of people discover for the first time with a property claim is that under policies, the insurance company only needs to front you what's called the actual cash value. And you have to arrange to get the replacement cost. And sometimes that is difficult. other issues that come up the carrier may want to repair damaged equipment or and you want it replaced in general you know if the way to handle this is to ask the original equipment manufacturer if they will honor any warranties if the equipment is repaired and they generally say they won't and if you're not put in the same position that you had prior to an event that's not the rule the rule is that you should be put in the same position. And that usually means replacement property, not repaired. As for the time element part of property, the general rule in business income is that it's to do what you would have done, but for the event. And that's, So for business income, that's the profit and the unavoidable continuing expenses. Extra expenses are expenses that you incur to keep in business, and there's usually coverage for extra expenses. One thing to note at the outset, and I think we're going to talk about it a little b

Carolyn Rosenberg, Stephen Raptis and Jalen Brown explain what “bump up” exclusions in D&O insurance are, and policy considerations when considering or structuring a transaction.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello, and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues, and topics of interest affecting commercial policy holders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
Carolyn: Welcome to our Insured Success podcast, the bump-up exclusion. I'm Carolyn Rosenberg. I'm a partner in our insurance recovery group on behalf of policyholders here in Chicago. With me today are my colleagues, Jalen Brown, also in Chicago, and Steve Raptis in our Washington, DC office. We'll get right into it. We've talked about the bump-up exclusion, which is a name. Jalen, can you start us off and tell us what do we mean when we say a bump-up exclusion? 
Jalen: Yes, thank you, Caroline. So bump-up exclusions have become a hot issue for D&O insurance coverage. Insurers have begun raising these issues regularly in claims involving corporate mergers and acquisitions, insurers assert these bump-up exclusion claims whenever consideration paid in an acquisition is alleged to be too low. And so while a bump-up exclusion is referred to as an exclusion, we won't find a bump-up exclusion in exclusion sections. There is a carve-out for the definition of an otherwise covered loss. And so a bump-up exclusion provisions are often found within a D&O policy's definition of loss, and attempts to exclude the amount of a settlement or judgment that represents an increase in the price paid to acquire an entity where such consideration was alleged to be inadequate. There are a few exceptions to the bump-up exclusion. Virtually all bump-up exclusions carve out coverage for defense costs and side A claims, and I know Steve is going to tell us a little bit more about what side A claims are. 
Stephen: Just as a little bit of history, D&O policies were originally put into the marketplace largely to protect the directors and officers from non-indemnified claims, the kind of claims that the company will not indemnify them for or can't indemnify them for legally. Those are side A claims. Many D&O policies also include side B and side C coverage that protects the company. But the side A claims are the non-indemnified claims against the officers and the directors. 
Carolyn: So, Jalen had mentioned that these come into play in acquisition situations and transactions. Steve, tell us, where do you think the bump-up exclusions come into play most? What kinds of cases or situations should you be on the lookout for? 
Stephen: In my experience, I've been seeing insurers assert that bump-up exclusions apply to really all types of corporate transactions. They haven't limited it to one type. It's become sort of a go-to generic defense anytime there's an allegation in a case that inadequate consideration was paid and consideration with a transaction. And that includes both public and private companies. And we have seen sort of a morphing of these exclusions. It used to be traditionally they would apply to, they would contain language that made them applicable to acquisitions. That was a key word, and often it would be accompanied with acquisitions of all or substantially all of the assets of some other entity, and that was where the exclusion applied. But more contemporary versions we're seeing have really gotten away from that acquisition language. We might call it a restriction. And we know that with most public company transactions, they will be challenged. It's the nature of the beast. And when I say challenged, one side, one set of shareholders or another will claim that either their side paid too much or the other side wil

Catherine Lewis and Emma Shafton team up to discuss the UK's Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act of 2023 and its potential impact on directors and officers (D&O) insurance coverage. Both based in London, the lawyers discuss important steps that policyholders can take to mitigate risks.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues and topics of interest affecting commercial policyholders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
Catherine: Welcome back to Insured Success. My name is Catherine Lewis. I'm a senior associate in our London office. I am joined today by my colleague Emma Shafton, who is a senior associate in our global regulatory enforcement group who specializes in white collar crime and investigations. Today, Emma is going to talk to us about the two new corporate criminal offenses contained in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 which came into force in the UK at the end of 2023. And we are going to share our insights on what this means for policyholders operating in the UK. The potential impact on your directors and officers and other insurance cover and some of the steps that policyholders can take to mitigate risks. Emma, could you give us an overview of this new legislation? 
Emma: Sure. So the Act, ECCTA I'll refer to it as, came about as part of the UK government's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. By this time, there was an increasing understanding that London had become um a dumping ground really for dirty money by foreign elites, Kleptocrats and other bad actors and that the UK's economy was being abused. So the act represents a complete overhaul of the UK government's framework for tackling economic crime. The act itself covers a very broad range of issues. You know, beyond the scope of this podcast, including companies house reforms, but today, we're going to focus on two significant changes to corporate criminal law. The first is the new senior manager's offense and the second is the new failure to prevent fraud offense. So let's deal with the first offense first. So that's the senior manager's offense and that's under section 196 of ECCTA. Uh This came into force very quietly on boxing day last year actually. Um and a lot of Corporates have been caught by surprise by it and it's worth flagging at the outset that this is completely separate to the FCA's existing senior managers and certification regime. These are different things. It's perhaps unfortunate that the draftsman of a decided to use the same language because the definitions unhelpfully do not correlate. Um So I just wanted to flag that at the beginning, we're dealing with a completely new corporate criminal offense here. What the offense means basically for corporates is that if a senior manager of the organization acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority commits a relevant criminal offense and those offenses are economic crimes. So things like theft, bribery, fraud, false accounting money laundering, and also certain tax offenses. If that senior manager commits one of those specified offenses, the corporate can be criminally liable. Now, what the repercussions of that would be, is a very large fine. Essentially. Now, this offense um can apply to senior managers of a body corporate or partnership and there's no size criteria or threshold. So that means that all organizations um of any size could be liable so long as the jurisdictional requirements are met, you know, this is a UK act and we'll come on to that um, Later. 
Catherine: Interesting, this seems like a really big shift from the previous regime. Is, is that right? 
Emma: It is. So the new senior manager's offense is

David Cummings and Lauren Gubricky are joined by Jeff Buzen of McGill and Partners to discuss representations and warranties insurance, best practices for making claims and trends in the industry.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues and topics of interest affecting commercial policy holders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
David: Hello and welcome to another episode of Insured Success. Thanks for joining us. My name is David Cummings. I'm a partner at Reed Smith in our insurance recovery group. A way of just a little bit of background. My practice focuses on navigating insurance coverage, disputes, litigation, mediation and arbitration for our corporate policyholder clients, as well as helping those clients navigate insurance placements, renewals claims and the like all with their insurers. An ever growing part of that practice involves a product called representations and warranties insurance or reps and warranties insurance. That's a topic of our discussion today. So before we get started, I have a few introductions are in order. Uh I'm joined today by my colleague, Lauren Gubricky, an associate in Reed Smith's insurance recovery group. Hi, Lauren. 
Lauren: Hi, Dave. Thanks for having me. 
David: I’m also joined by our guest, Jeff Buzen, a partner in financial lines at McGill and Partners. Hi, Jeff. And thanks for joining us today. 
Jeff: Thanks Dave. Great to be here. 
David: So, between the three of us, we're gonna cover a few topics today. So I'm gonna start and provide a high level overview of reps and warranties insurance, what it is and how it's used. Then I'm gonna pass it to Lauren who's going to focus on reps and warranties claims and a few best practices. And along the way, we're gonna talk with Jeff to provide us with some insights and trends with respect to the reps and warranties market. So with that, let's get started. So let's start with a quick overview, reps and warranties insurance. What even is it? At at a very high level in a private equity deal, we have company A, the buyer purchasing company, B, the seller. So as part of that purchase and as a result of information borne out through due diligence, the seller makes certain reps and warranties regarding its business. Those can include ongoing risks, contingent liabilities, reps related to financial statements and so on. Traditionally, to hedge against the risks of inaccurate or incomplete information, the asset purchase agreement would provide recourse to the buyer in the form of an indemnity provision and the way that works is a seller would have to back that obligation with funds in the form of a hold back or escrow uh and keep those funds in place for a negotiated survival period, often for several years. Now, the issue is that these indemnity provisions can be the source of extensive negotiations in and of themselves negotiations that could add layers of unwanted complexity to a deal. Um And that may result in delays and disagreements. And in some cases, historically, the deal could collapse entirely over, over these disagreements and these negotiations. So insteps reps and warranties insurance. This product was developed to at least in part to avoid these issues and speed up deals by shifting the risk to a third party insurance company. This allows for higher indemnity limits and survival periods without material increasing seller exposure all while being able to keep up deal pays to close quickly and not be bogged down by extensive disagreements or negotiations between the buyer and the seller. So what do these policies look like? So they can be purchased by the buyer as first party coverage or the seller as third party coverage in practice t

Laura-May Scott and Margaret Campbell analyze the ABN AMRO Bank N.V. v. RSA et al case in detail and also cover what should be included in a marine cargo policy.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues and topics of interest affecting commercial policy holders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
Margaret: Hello, welcome back to the Insured Success IRG podcast. I'm Margaret Campbell, a partner at Reed Smith and this is my partner, Laura-May Scott. We are both insurance recovery specialists. Today we're going to present to you a case analysis on a very important case that we worked on during the pandemic. In this case, we represented ABN AMRO who was suing a group of 14 insurers in the company and the Lloyds Market and ABN’s broker, Edge, for losses it thought it should have been covered for under its marine cargo insurance policy. 
Laura-May: And it's worth setting the scene here a bit and reminding listeners what a marine cargo policy typically covers. A marine cargo policy does not just provide cover for marine transit. It's capable of being extended to cover transport by air, rail, road and storage. So marine cargo cover can ensure the entire movement irrespective of the means of transport of the underlying goods. Now, under a standard insurance policy, it's only the physical loss or damage to the goods which is generally the subject matter of the insurance. 
Margaret: So going back to the ABN case, the case there concerned losses of £35 million suffered by the bank when two of its customers Transmar and Euromar defaulted under a series of repo financing deals over cocoa and cocoa products. And a significant fraud was uncovered in relation to the defaulted transactions. Not only had the same goods been pledged to various banks, but the quality of the goods was absolutely terrible. Following their defaults, the bank was left holding large quantities of cocoa and cocoa products worth only a fraction of the loan repayments due to the bank. During the course of this case, Laura-May and I learned a lot about cocoa and cocoa products, much more than the man on the street ever knows. And we would issue a warning to everyone listening to this podcast to avoid cheap chocolate. 
Laura-May: Yes, indeed. Initially, we worked with the bank and the broker to seek to persuade the insurers to actually pay out under the policy. We gave presentations to them on the underlying goods and the steps that were being taken by the bank to recoup losses. Thereafter, we entered into formal correspondence where the bank formally claimed an indemnity for the shortfall under an all risks policy of marine cargo insurance, which as Margaret says was placed with 14 cargo insurers in the London market by Edge brokers. However, the insurers formally rejected the claim after five long months of discussion. 
Margaret: So this claim was actually made for financial losses arising from the defaulted transactions. The problem was the cargo was valued at 35 million and when it came to be sold, it was worth, you know, just a couple of million. Uh There had been no physical loss or doubt with just a question of quality. For those of you familiar with marine cargo insurance, there have been many legal authorities in England that say that in order to trigger a marine cargo policy, you must have physical loss or damage to the cargo. So what was different here? Well, in this case, this was precisely the risk that the bank was, was concerned about and they talked about it internally, they took legal advice from outside lawyers, they talked to their brokers, they went backwards and forwards for months saying in this scenario, what would happen in that scenario, what would h

Mark Pring, Catherine Lewis, and Tom Morgan break down the three pillars of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), and discuss current risks that policyholders are facing and how they should go about mitigating certain risks.
----more----
Transcript:
Intro: Hello and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's insurance recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends issues and topics of interest affecting commercial policyholders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist. 
Mark: Welcome back, everyone to our podcast series, Insured Success. My name is Mark Pring. I'm delighted to be joined by my insurance colleagues, Catherine Lewis and Tom Morgan to talk about some topical issues relating to ESG risks and how policyholders can try and mitigate such risks. I know you've both written quite a bit on ESG risks on our Policyholder Perspectives blog. Tom, starting with you and focusing first on the E in ESG what are some of the key risks facing Corporates at the moment? 
Tom: Yeah, sure. So climate related litigation is the obvious one. So climate related disputes in the UK traditionally have focused on, you know, challenges to government decision making and policy through the judicial review mechanism. But I do think we're now seeing a change of approach focusing instead on corporate actors as, as the strategic target. I think this is in part because of increased transparency and disclosure requirements placed on corporate entities which produces more actual information and gives claimants greater scope to target claims based on, you know, embedded international standards and settled climate knowledge.
Mark: Ok. And what types of claims are we talking about here? 
Tom: Yeah, it's a pretty wide array really. Challenges are coming from investors, consumers, activists, regulators and also litigation funders are increasingly looking to back some of these claims. Strategic climate change claims like the recent client Earth action, for example, targeting off directive notably failed to get off the ground, but it's unlikely to be the end of these types of claims in the UK. This exposure is arguably higher since the UK became the first G20 country to put into practice the goals of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures by making it mandatory for the UK's largest companies and financial institutions to report on their climate change risks. Activist claimants in the UK therefore often supported by institutional investors potentially have greater ability than in other jurisdictions to hold corporates to account. They can closely scrutinize disclosed metrics and net zero transition plans with reference to the impacts on agreed international standards. 
Mark: Thanks Tom. So this, this seems to be a sort of information paradox, if I can call it that. On the one hand, you have inadequate disclosure of information which may give rise to corporate liability. Yet, publication of the same data may provide a foot in the door for strategic litigation against those same corporates. 
Tom: Yes, exactly. So this risk is obviously at its highest for high emitting corporates. However, prospective claimants could target any sector, particularly those directly or indirectly financing carbon intensive companies, but also a wider array of industries including for example, financial services, retail, agriculture, and transport. Many of these you know, companies in these industries will also have set 2030 reduction targets and obviously 2050 beyond that. So we could start to see the claims rack up uh in the near future. 
Mark: Understood. So what about the more traditional types of claim those seeking loss and damage? 
Tom: Yeah, there haven't really been many breakthroughs in the English Court yet. However, outside of the UK, there has been a growing tren