In the United States, cyber insurance underwriters have historically been concerned with assessing first-party exposure when a policyholder sustains a data security incident requiring crisis management, remediation, and computer system restoration; or assessing third-party exposure via data breaches or regulatory defenses and fines resulting from financial or health services sectorial privacy regulations. However, the very recent passing of numerous state general privacy laws, as well as the FTC‘s continued dedication toward exercising its Section 5 powers against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” may be broadening the scope of exposure to cyber insurance underwriters and forcing them to reconsider future cyber insurance coverage and exclusions. The FTC in particular has recently focused on one particular subcategory of privacy violation: “dark patterns.”

On May 31, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) listed four entities and one individual for promoting Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program. U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson stated that Iran’s UAV program was supplying Russia’s arsenal in Ukraine, and OFAC’s latest move is part of ongoing efforts to counter Iran’s destabilizing actions.

Expanding upon prior decisions that support the use of insurance adjusted rates when mitigating future medical damage claims, the Fourth District Appellate Court recently ruled that in a personal injury action the defense is permitted to ask questions regarding future eligibility for Medicare without violating the collateral source rule. This decision allows the defense to introduce evidence of Medi-Cal and Medicare eligibility along with anticipated future costs at those significantly reduced rates. The Fourth District reasoned in its ruling that the collateral source rule was not violated because such evidence pertained to the value of future medical services, which is permitted according to well-established precedent.

On June 11, 2024, in its decision in the Celestial Aviation Services Limited v. UniCredit Bank GmbH case, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales ("Court") issued a significant ruling on the impact of U.K. and U.S. sanctions on payment obligations under letters of credit (“LCs”). While the court below found that UniCredit was obligated to pay the LCs, on appeal the Court determined that the imposition of sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom and the United States prevented payment on the LCs. 

On June 20, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) took several steps against Kaspersky Lab, Inc. (“Kaspersky”), a U.S. subsidiary of a Russian company and its affiliates

Courts across the country continue to bolster transportation brokers’ defense against state law tort claims, as seen by another favorable ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week.

On June 12, 2024, the United States intensified its sanctions and export control measures against Russia, aligning with commitments made by the G7 countries. Specifically, the United States designated more than 300 additional entities — including major supporters of the Russian financial infrastructure — broadened the scope of secondary sanctions applicable to foreign financial institutions, and imposed additional export controls on information technology and software, among other items and services. These actions, coinciding with the 50th G7 summit, significantly expand restrictions aimed at Russia's military operations in Ukraine and implicate new legal and business considerations for U.S. persons and companies with international operations.

The longstanding legal doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employees committed in the course and scope of their employment. Conventionally, the legal concept has been straightforward in its application. However, with the modern-day workplace becoming less defined, Kentucky employers that utilize a hybrid workplace—allowing remote and in-person attendance—may be exposed to additional liability when their employees are traveling to and from the office. This article is focused on Kentucky employers that utilize a hybrid workplace and the accompanying risk for additional liability exposures.