Analysis of “relatedness” in directors and officers liability insurance claims has shifted over time in Delaware. In last week’s decision in Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Insurance Appeals, Case Nos. 154, 2024 and 157, 2024 (Del. Feb. 4, 2025), the Delaware Supreme Court adopted a “meaningful linkage” standard for relatedness analysis in overturning the trial court’s holding on relatedness. Related claims is an inherently unpredictable and fact-specific issue, and the Alexion decision provides further guidance to Delaware policyholders on how to navigate those disputes in the future.
On February 11, 2025, the European Commission made available its 2025 work program, which sets out the key strategies, action plans and legislative initiatives to be pursued by the European Commission.
The Trump administration’s pledge to impose tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico have many U.S. companies concerned about higher-priced inputs and disrupted supply chains. In an article published by the Export Practitioner, counsel Jorge Aviles and associate Jae Lynn Huckaba explore the insurance coverage options, such as political risk insurance and trade credit insurance, that can offer coverage to protect against and mitigate trade-related risks. The article also provides advice on how policyholders can maximize coverage should a loss occur, and further discusses the impact that tariffs might have on the insurance market, including premiums for certain types of insurance lines.
On Tuesday, February 11, the State of Missouri sued Starbucks for violations of federal and state laws prohibiting race discrimination. In a statement regarding the lawsuit, Attorney General Andrew Bailey said, “[r]acism has no place in Missouri. [The State] fil[ed] suit to halt [a] blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks.”
For policyholders, insurance is meant to provide peace of mind—a promise that when disaster strikes, they’ll have financial support to rebuild and recover. But as two recent cases show, the question of what qualifies as covered “direct physical loss or damage” can lead to drastically different outcomes in court.
In two recent California cases, both policyholders sought coverage after wildfire smoke and debris affected their properties. One court ruled in favor of coverage. Bottega, LLC v. National Surety Corporation, No. 21-cv-03614-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2025). The other sided with the insurer. Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co., No. B325859, 2025 WL 426092 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2025). These contrasting decisions highlight issues policyholders may encounter in securing coverage for smoke-related damage and the ongoing debate over what constitutes “direct physical loss or damage,” a key phrase in most property insurance policies.
This post explores these cases, the influence of COVID-19 coverage litigation on the interpretation of “direct physical loss or damage,” and what policyholders can learn to better protect their rights.
