on January 27, 2016
Last August, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. J.R. Marketing, LLC. 353 P.3d 319 (Cal. 2015). In its decision, the Court was faced with whether or not an insurer can recover litigation costs directly from Cumis counsel for "unreasonable and unnecessary" fees, or whether an insurer is limited to recover only from an insured in such an action. Id. at 324. In its opinion, the Court concluded that an insurer can seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Id. Although limited to its facts, this case signals a separation from the Court's precedent in Buss v. Superior Court and opens the door for insurers to seek reimbursement from third parties not listed as insureds under a policy....
Read Full Article >>
on November 11, 2015
In August of this year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. stating that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has the authority to hold companies accountable for their use of unfair practices relating to cybersecurity threats. The standard determining "unfair practices" remains a bit unclear. However, companies have been put on notice of possible penalties instituted by the FTC in instances of security breach. FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 799 F.3d 236, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14839 (3rd Cir. 2015)....
Read Full Article >>
This Blog is intended to provide information generally and to identify general legal requirements. It is not intended as a form of, or as a substitute for legal advice. Such advice should always come from in-house or retained counsel. Moreover, if this Blog in any way seems to contradict advice of counsel, counsel's opinion should control over anything written herein. No attorney client relationship is created or implied by this Blog. © 2024 Brouse McDowell. All rights reserved.