(Insured’s Action For Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Against Disability Insurer Not Time-Barred Because, Although Insurer Issued Claim Denial Letter Over Four Years Prior to Action, Insured’s Claims Did Not Accrue Until Insurer Ceased Paying Benefits Approximately One Year Before Insured Filed Suit)

(Homeowner Policy’s One-Year Limitations Clause Barred Insured’s UCL Action Effectively Seeking Policy Benefits, Even Though a Four-Year Limitations Period Ordinarily Applies To UCL Claims and the Insurer Briefly Reopened the Previously Denied Claim Within the One-Year Period in Response To Insured’s Inquiry)

(Trial Court Correctly Granted Summary Judgment To Life Insurer Because, While Regulations Require A Suitability Analysis To Be Conducted Before Variable Life Insurance Is Issued, They Permit An Insurer Issuing Such Insurance To Rely On The Suitability Analysis Conducted By A Licensed Broker Instead Of Conducting Independent Analysis)

(Allegations That Medical Corporations Falsely Held Themselves Out As Radiology Services Providers In Bills Submitted To Insurer Were Sufficient To Show Violations of Insurance Frauds Prevention Act and UCL, Regardless Of Whether Defendants Interfered With Physicians’ Decisions or Whether Maltreatment, Overtreatment or Overbilling Occurred)

(Failure to Cancel Certificate of Insurance Filed For Purpose of Proof of Financial Responsibility By Commercial Trucker Does Not Prevent Expiration of Commercial Auto Policy)

(Under Oregon Law, Property Loss Based On Shutdown of Medical Clinics Did Not Constitute Direct Physical Loss Under Commercial Insurance Policy)

(Insurer Entitled to Summary Judgment Because Insureds Failed to Meet Their Burden of Establishing Direct Physical Loss Sustained by Embryos Caused by a Specific Peril Covered by Homeowners Insurance Policy)

On September 21, 2023, the Treasury Department announced that its Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) had reached a settlement with Emigrant Bank (“Emigrant”), a commercial bank located in New York, related to 30 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (“ITSR”) for $31,868. The announcement stated that while the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty in the matter is $9,928,410,” the base civil monetary penalty in this case is $45,526. Because the apparent violations were non-egregious and were voluntarily self-disclosed by Emigrant, the final settlement amount was significantly reduced from even the minimum penalty.

(Commercial Auto Liability Insurer Was Not Required to Afford Limits of $750,000 Required Under California Law for Motor Carriers of Property)

Our New York office continues its efforts to expand the playbook for successfully defending claims brought by plaintiffs who undergo surgery following motor vehicle accidents. In many motor vehicle cases, it is very questionable whether any post-accident surgery was medically necessary, and/or causally related to the alleged impact from the accident. In New York, practitioners sometimes overlook the “serious injury” defense of NY Insurance Law § 5102(d) when it comes to claims where the plaintiff undergoes a discectomy, laminectomy or a fusion after the accident. Under NY Insurance Law § 5104(a), a plaintiff who has not sustained a “serious injury” (as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)) has no private cause of action for non-economic loss; rather, they must pursue No-Fault insurance as their sole remedy.