The Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.

On March 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) joined other federal agencies led by Biden Administration appointees in ramping up consideration of climate-related risks in matters under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Stressing the need for a climate-resilient financial system, the CFTC’s new Climate-Risk Unit (CRU) will focus on “the role of derivatives in understanding, pricing, and addressing climate-related risk and transitioning to a low-carbon economy."

Following previous steps to enhance its focus on climate-related disclosures, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced on March 15, 2021 that it was accepting public comment on climate change disclosure requirements for public company filings. Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee opened a 90-day comment period on whether current disclosure requirements provide investors with adequate information on climate-related impacts and, if not, what additional rules should be considered.

New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department recently issued a decision in Alleviation Medical Svcs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 08159 (App. Div., 2nd Dept. 2/24/21), which was anticipated to specifically address the issue of whether an insurer would be required to pay in excess of the $50,000 policy limit if a court or arbitrator determined that a previously denied claim should have been paid.

A recent decision from a unanimous California Supreme Court provides further warning to employers against utilizing rounding policies with respect to timekeeping systems. Specifically, the court held that: (1) employers cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches in the meal period context; and (2) time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations, including at the summary judgment stage.