Category: Civil Unrest

Hackers Caused a Traffic Jam in Moscow

Hackers caused a massive traffic jam in Moscow by exploiting the ride-sharing app Yandex Taxi and using it to summon dozens of taxis to a single location. While Yandex has not confirmed the attacker’s identity, the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed responsibility on Twitter. The group has been actively taking aim at Russian targets in response to the Russian Federation’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Yandex claims that it has implemented new algorithms to detect this type of attack in the future and will compensate the affected drivers.

This traffic jam is a new application of an old hacktivist tactic: flood the system to make it unusable. Other techniques in this vein include blackouts (which target fax machines) and distributed denial of service (which targets websites and networks). No word yet on whether this new rideshare jam exploit will merit a snappy title.

Blair Robinson contributed to this article. 

For more Global Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms $30 Million Libel Verdict Against Oberlin College

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in excess of $30,000,000 against Oberlin College, holding that Oberlin was responsible for libelous statements made during the course of a student protest. Gibson Bros., Inc. v. Oberlin College, 2022 WL 970347 (Ohio Ct. App. March 31, 2022). The court’s rationale, if followed elsewhere, could lead to significantly broader institutional and corporate liability for statements by students and employees.

The case arose out of an incident in which an employee of the Gibson Brothers Bakery and Food Mart accused a black student of shoplifting, and then pursued and held the student until police arrived. Over the next few days, large groups of student protestors gathered outside the bakery and among other things handed out a flyer describing the incident as an “assault,” and stating that the bakery had a “long account of racial profiling and discrimination.” The day following the incident, the student senate passed a resolution calling for a boycott. It likewise described the incident as an assault on the student and stated that the bakery had a “history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students….” The resolution was emailed to the entire campus and posted on the senate bulletin board, where it remained for over a year. The court found the statements to be factually untrue, because the student pled guilty to the shoplifting charge and admitted racial profiling did not occur, and the College presented no evidence of any past racial profiling or instances of discrimination at the bakery.

The court acknowledged that there was no evidence that Oberlin participated in drafting the flyer or the student senate resolution. Instead, the court found Oberlin liable on the theory that one who republishes a libel, or who aids and abets the publication of a libelous statement, can be liable along with the original publisher. As to the flyer, the court cited the following as evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that Oberlin had either republished or aided and abetted its publication:

  • Oberlin’s Dean of Students attended the protests as part of her job responsibilities;
  • the Dean of Students handed a copy of the flyer to a journalist who had not yet seen it and told students they could use a college copier to make more copies of the flyer;
  • the associate director of a multicultural resource center was seen carrying a large number of flyers, which he appeared to be distributing to others to redistribute to the public; and
  • the College provided a warming room with coffee and pizza at a site near the protests.

As to the student senate resolution, the court cited:

  • the senate was an approved organization;
  • the College created the senate’s authority to adopt and circulate the resolution;
  • the senate faculty moderator was the Dean of Students; and
  • despite having knowledge of the content of the resolution, neither the President nor the Dean of Students took any steps to require or encourage the student senate to revoke the resolution or to remove it from the bulletin board.

The court then held that despite the publicity the bakery received once the dispute arose, at the time of the protests and resolution the bakery and its owners were private persons, not public figures. Thus, the bakery only had to show that Oberlin had been negligent, rather than that it acted with reckless indifference as to the truth or falsity of the statements published.

Particularly in these polarized times, university administrators should be aware of and take steps to manage legal risks when external disputes become the subject of campus discussion and activism. Student organizations, faculty and administrators should be reminded that, to the extent they participate in protests or other public commentary outside their official roles, they should make clear they are acting for themselves and not the institution. Institutional responses to causes espoused by students or faculty need to be carefully vetted to assure that any factual assertions about third parties are accurate.

Article By Barry P. Kaltenbach and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Ongoing Canadian Protests Shine Spotlight on Ripple Effect of Supply Chain Disruptions

Although the last two years have seen a nearly never-ending line of supply chain impacts for manufacturers, the latest disruption is also serving to shine a spotlight on the broader impact that relatively small disruptions in the supply chain can have on the global economy.  We all know that trucking is a critical component of the economy.  The U.S. estimates seventy two percent of goods in the U.S. travel by truck.  Trucking has become even more important in this era of increased deliveries and backlogs at ports and other logistics hubs.

In Canada, what began as protests by truckers regarding certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates have snowballed into broader protests and blockages of roads, bridges, and border crossings.

Protesters have been blocking various bridges and roads in Canada in protest of certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates.  On Tuesday, the bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario to Detroit (a critical linkage for cross-border travel) was largely blocked, with traffic stopped going into Canada and slowed to a trickle going into the United States. The blockades are now leading U.S. automakers to begin trimming shifts and pausing certain operations in their Michigan and Canadian plants. The bridge protests and automakers’ reduction in capacity continued on Thursday without an end in sight.

The ongoing protests in Canada have also served as a reminder of how seemingly local trucking disruptions in one country can cascade through the supply chain.  This is not the first time that trucking strikes and blockages have rippled through the supply chain and economy.  In 1996, a truckers’ strike in France lasted 12 days, barricading major highways and ultimately leading to concessions from the French government over certain worker benefits and hours.  The resulting agreement led to heightened tensions with Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain due to the impact felt across borders.  In 2008, truckers went on strike in Spain and blocked roads and border crossings, protesting fuel prices.  In 2018, truckers in Brazil staged a large strike and protest that lasted for 10 days, blocking roads, disrupting food and fuel distribution, canceling flights, and causing certain part shortages for automakers.

The ongoing protests in Canada have similarly expanded from Ottawa to the current blockage of border crossings, further raising their profile internationally as they begin to impact global trade.  It remains to be seen how the blockades and protests will resolve, as leaders call for de-escalation and re-opening of roads and crossings.  However, the ripple effects of what started as a localized protest will continue to be felt far beyond Canada’s borders.

Article By Lauren M. Loew of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more COVID-19 and supply chain legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Collapse of Afghanistan – Operational and Compliance Considerations

Measures to mitigate current foreseeable impacts

The unprecedented speed of the collapse of the former Afghan central government is a humanitarian tragedy. The magnitude of which is rightfully distracting from the immediate near-term and long-term legal issues that those who supported the coalition efforts in Afghanistan are compelled to address as the immediate human concerns fade from the spotlight.

In particular, U.S. government (USG) contractors are going to face a variety of legal implications from the events unfolding in Afghanistan — which will vary depending upon the existence of assets, facilities, contracts, or personnel in Afghanistan. This alert addresses several common issues arose over the last 72 hours in assisting clients that had operations in Afghanistan. This alert is by no means exhaustive of the issues that will be faced by those with assets, facilities, contracts, or personnel related to USG business in Afghanistan.

U.S. Sanctions

It is probable that the U.S. will issue economic sanctions in the very near term based on the likelihood of widespread human rights violations and atrocities. U.S. sanctions will likely be levied against the Taliban, known leaders of the Taliban, and entities owned or controlled by the Taliban – including former private businesses subjugated to Taliban control. Typically, there is a permissible wind-down/extraction period, but such a grace period may not be afforded with possible Afghanistan sanctions based on the terrorist history of the Taliban. As a result, USG contractors should consider terminating business and contacts with Afghan entities to be able to comply with U.S. sanctions if or when levied.

Recovery of Investments

Based on the departure of the president and other key officials of the now displaced Afghan central government, it is probable that former officials will make a claim that they remain the legitimate government of Afghanistan in exile (though the Biden administration is already offering to recognize the Taliban if they respect women’s rights – which is unlikely.) It is also probable that the same displaced officials transferred assets out of Afghanistan to mitigate risk in the event of an overthrow. If so, there will be competing claims against limited assets. As a result, it may be necessary to work to recover any funds, capitalization or guarantees tied to any Afghan entities as soon as practicable.

Shutdown of Afghan Entities

At this time, the Afghan Embassy in Washington, D.C., still appears to be operational and is reportedly using electronic platforms to continue consular processes. The U.S. State Department is also advising that its interactions with the Afghan Embassy in D.C. for business-related matters are continuing, though it is likely that such operations and processes will be impacted or even come to a halt based on the above observations. As a result, the ability to “legally” shutdown an Afghan legal entity via the U.S. Afghan Embassy will become increasingly difficult or unlikely.

USG contractors that don’t have any personnel, facilities or assets in Afghanistan could be relegated to shutting down Afghan operations by actions in the U.S. and documenting such for U.S. sanctions and export control compliance purposes. Such documentation may also be useful for reimbursement claims from the U.S. government (which could be proposed for those supporting USG directives in Afghanistan if the Afghan presence was to support USG actions). Such documentation may be helpful in supporting U.S. tax deductions for losses or costs related to the “forced” Afghan shutdown.

To effectuate and document the shutdown of Afghan operations by actions in the U.S., it may be necessary that the board of directors for any Afghan subsidiary and its direct U.S. parent resolve to shut down the Afghan business, regardless of the ability to effectuate such in Afghanistan or with the Afghan Embassy in D.C. It will be important to maintain records of such to document compliance with possible future U.S. sanctions or changes in U.S. export control requirements.

U.S. Export Control

USG contractors should also determine if there are any U.S. export licenses or Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) in place. If so, they may need to be terminated. If the U.S. origin items or information covered by such licenses or TAAs is in Afghanistan, and is either unrecoverable or otherwise compromised, then the U.S. exporter may need to make a voluntary disclosure of such. We recommend the retention of outside counsel to complete a proper attorney-client privileged assessment of the specific facts related to the exporter’s situation and covered items, as well as possible voluntary disclosure based on the Taliban’s act of war.

As noted, additional issues and considerations will likely arise as more information becomes available about the immediate near-term and long-term situation in Afghanistan. USG contractors and other U.S. entities with business, operations or connections to Afghanistan will need to be mindful of the real-time changes in Afghanistan and the U.S. and international responses, and be prepared to adapt and implement policies, procedures and controls to address such.

© 2021 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Black Lives Matter, Racial Unrest and Corporate Culture – How Do Employers Respond?

As the daily news continues to show protests and calls for justice in response to the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police officers, there is, unsurprisingly, a desire from employees to hear from their employers regarding the ongoing violence and racial unrest in our communities and across the country. Many employers recognized the gravity of the racial unrest by celebrating, for the first time, Juneteenth on June 19, 2020, a holiday celebrating the emancipation of slaves. But is that enough? How do employers respond?

As a practical matter, employers must be aware of the application of Constitutional free speech protections, employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act and state laws that may apply to expressive employee conduct, as detailed in our previous post.

Beyond that, employers can choose the level of their response and engagement, or choose to do nothing at all—there is no right or wrong answer or a “one size fits all” solution. The most common reaction from employers is to acknowledge the unrest and issue a statement of support. Many employers have also chosen to make a public announcement expressing solidarity and support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Though these responses are important, they fail to accomplish the more ambitious goal of many employers, which is to articulate and implement a strategy for lasting and real change within their own workplace and beyond. This action requires substantial reflection, consideration, time and effort.

So, for employers looking to do more, where do they start?

  • Leadership: Good leaders serve as good models. Leaders can lead by example and provide a safe workplace where all employees feel respected and included. As it pertains to the current environment, leaders can be open about their own lack of knowledge and share their growth and experiences with their workforce.
  • Anti-Discrimination Policies: Employers can review their policies regarding equal employment opportunity and workplace discrimination. Though most employers articulate such policies as a matter of course, it is important to reinforce these policies and remind employees of what is expected of them and to reassure employees who may be feeling vulnerable at this time.
  • Diversity Initiatives: Employers can focus on building diversity within their ranks by ensuring that recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement are truly objective and based on merit. Employers can also consider implementing a version of the National Football League’s recently-revised “Rooney Rule,” wherein at least two non-white candidates must be considered for open head coaching positions, and one non-white candidate must be considered for coordinator, senior football operations or general manager positions. Forming a diversity committee or task force is another way to ensure that minority members of your workforce are being heard and understood by management.
  • Awareness: Employers can educate their employees about prejudice and racism in its various forms; this can consist of formal training or open forums in which employees can communicate with one another and, importantly, with their co-workers of color. Employers can also make educational materials available for employees.
  • Community Involvement: Employers can publicly support the movement in the form of donations or activism. Doing so can create a sense of pride among your workforce, and it can also help in attracting future hires that share the principles of your workplace.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

ARTICLE BY Anne Marie Schloemer at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

For more on employer-employee conduct see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Riot-Related Damage and Income Losses are Covered under Most Business Owners’ Policies

Following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, and Rayshard Brooks, protests against systematic racism in general, and police brutality in particular, have swept the globe. These protests have largely been peaceful, but a small, fractious group of individuals has used the protests as cover to incite violence, damage property, and loot businesses. While it might be cold comfort to the affected business owners to hear that property damage is not the norm, most have insurance that protects their pecuniary interest.[1]

 First-party property insurance policies generally include riot and civil commotion as covered causes of loss, unless there is a specific exclusion in the policy. Although courts have acknowledged that defining a “riot” can be difficult because they can vary in size, courts have identified at least four elements:

  1. unlawful assembly of three or more people (or lawful assembly that due to its violence and tumult becomes unlawful);
  2. acts of violence;
  3. intent to mutually assist against lawful authority where “lawful authority” is not limited to official law enforcement, but extends to those whose rights are or may be injured and who seek to protect those rights; and
  4. some degree of public terror (i.e., any minor public disturbance does not rise to the level of “riot”).

Blackledge v. Omega Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 295, 299 (Miss. 1999).

Civil commotion likewise is undefined in most property policies. As a starting point, the term necessarily means something other than “riot,” since each term in an insurance policy is presumed to have its own meaning. See, e.g., Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 241 Or. App. 161, 171 (2011). Thus, while “civil commotion” may be similar to a riot, courts have construed the term more broadly, finding that civil commotion entails “either a more serious disturbance or one that is a part of a broader series of disturbances.” Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 368 F. Supp. 1098, 1138 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff’d, 505 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1974). In fact, most property policies contain no limitation on the breadth of commotion or the type of harm that it might pose to person or property.

In many policies, riot, civil commotion, vandalism, and malicious mischief are “specified causes of loss.” The practical effect of this designation is that numerous exclusions will contain exceptions for loss caused by these situations. For example, while damage to a business’s electronic data may be excluded, the exclusion may contain an exception for damage to electronic data resulting from specified causes of loss, such as riot or civil commotion. Similarly, even where the policy contains a pollution exclusion – purportedly excluding loss, damage, cost, or expense caused by or contributed to or made worse by the release of “pollutants,” which could include tear gas – that exclusion may not apply to loss or damage caused by riot, civil commotion, or vandalism.

If a policy covers riot or civil commotion, covered losses may include property damage to the building and its contents, and lost income while the building is under repair or subject to government orders affecting the business’s operations (e.g., curfews limiting hours of operation) where the order is the result of property damage elsewhere. Business insurance policies may also cover costs incurred in protecting insured property from future, imminent harm or continued damage. These costs might include hiring (or increasing) security personnel, boarding up windows and doors, securing inventory in place or moving inventory and operations off-site.

Prior to the riots in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the costliest U.S. civil disorder occurred after the acquittal of police officers involved with the arrest and beating of a black American, Rodney King, from April 29 through May 4, 1992, causing $775 million in insured losses.[2] More recently, there were approximately $24 million in insured losses following the death of Freddie Gray, a black American who died in police custody after suffering a spinal cord injury.[3] Insured losses are not yet available for the riots in Minneapolis, but the Property Claims Services (“PCS”) unit of Verisk Analytics designated the event as a catastrophe. On June 4, 2020, PCS included over 20 other states, making the civil unrest that started in Minnesota a multi-state catastrophic event.[4]

If your business has experienced or may experience a loss because of civil unrest or riots, you should begin keeping track of these losses – and costs incurred to avoid them – immediately. Save receipts and inventory damages. Contact your insurance company as soon as you experience a loss to report your claim and diligently log your interactions with your insurer and its representatives. If you feel your insurer wrongfully denied your claim or delayed payment, contact experienced insurance coverage counsel.

[1] The authors by no means intend to equate property damage and a lost life. Quite the opposite. One is recoverable (and insurable); the other is irreplaceable.

[2]  https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-civil-disorders (last viewed June 15, 2020).

[3] Id.

[4] Id. By June 4, 2020, at least 40 cities in 23 states had imposed curfews. National Guard were called in Washington, D.C. and at least 21 states.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more on property insurance amid protests, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance and Surety law page.

A Word About Business Interruption Claims From Vandalism, Riot and Civil Commotion

The death of George Floyd is a national tragedy that should never have happened.  The winds of change are in the air and we can only hope that peace, understanding, justice and fairness for all will prevail.  What happened to George Floyd and the cries to end racial injustice, however, have been overshadowed in the eyes of many by the vandalism, looting and rioting that followed.  That brings us to insurance.

There have been many articles discussing whether and how the business losses arising from the vandalism and looting will be covered under insurance policies.  Because these losses took place during the novel coronavirus pandemic, the insurance coverage issues have become more complex.  This is particularly true for business interruption claims.

There are three issues that I thought were worth highlighting.  The first concerns the confluence of the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders and the vandalism and looting.  The second is the necessary nexus between direct physical damage and civil orders under coverage for civil authority.  Finally, the effect of anti-concurrent cause clauses in property policies.

First, some of the business interruption claims now being brought by businesses that had to shut down because of the protests or because of the curfew orders have been complicated by overlapping civil authority stay-home orders because of the novel coronavirus.  Where a business was closed because of COVID-19 stay-home orders or was open only to provide curbside pickup or delivery services, how is its loss of income and extra expense calculated if the business had to close because of the civil unrest?  Analyzing this issue requires much more space than this blog post can provide.  It is a complicated issue that depends on exactly what coverage is provided and how loss of income is calculated under the relevant business interruption coverage grant.

Just as an example, under a common business income and extra expense coverage form, the amount of business income loss is determined based upon the net income of the business “before the direct physical loss or damage occurred,” the likely net income of the business “if no physical loss or damage has occurred . . . ” and “the operating expenses, including payroll expenses, necessary to resume operations with the same quality of service that existed just before the direct physical loss or damage.”  When applied to the recent vandalism and looting business interruption losses, the net income before the vandalism and looting may have been much less than in months or years past because of the COVID-19 stay-home orders.  If no vandalism and looting had occurred, the likely net income would have been the same as under the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders; that is to say, most likely diminished from prior periods.  Yet some are pushing for the COVID-19 effect not to be considered at all in the calculation of net income in the context of business interruption losses due to vandalism and looting.

Second, civil orders that prevented ingress and egress to and from businesses because of the threat of violence from possible protests likely will not be sufficient to trigger coverage under business interruption civil order provisions.  The common form requires a nexus between direct physical damage and the civil order.  For example, the action of civil authority must be “taken in response to dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage or continuation of the Covered Cause of Loss that caused the damage. . . .”  If a local government shuts down a business district in advance of a protest and before there is any physical damage to property, that civil order should not trigger coverage under the business interruption coverage grant.  A civil order that shuts down a business district after vandalism because the area is dangerous likely would result in some coverage under the business interruption coverage grant depending on other policy factors.

Finally, some property policies limit coverage to covered causes of loss and preclude coverage if the loss was caused in part by a non-covered cause of loss.  For example,

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause of event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.  These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.

If an insurance policy excludes a cause like looting, but covers vandalism, even if the loss was caused in part by looting, the anti-concurrent causation clause would preclude coverage.  So too, if part of the loss claimed was caused by the novel coronavirus and the policy has a virus exclusion, that would preclude the loss even if part of it was caused by vandalism.

As always, it is most important to read the complete policy because not all insurance policies are the same.  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that business interruption losses arising from the recent civil unrest have been complicated by existing governmental orders covering the novel coronavirus.  It will take patience by all parties and careful analysis to work through these claims.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on business interruption claims, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance and Surety law section.

Can Business Owners Get Insurance to Cover Losses from Riots, Vandalism and Civil Unrest?

The recent civil unrest in Baltimore, just like the mayhem that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, last year, is a stark reminder that we live in troubled times. While the events that lead to such occurrences are varied, and the societal issues that influence them can be widely debated, one thing is clear – the damage and destruction left in their wake is devastating. Shops burn, glass storefronts are shattered, inventory is stolen and valuable property is otherwise vandalized. Luckily for business owners both directly and indirectly affected by these unfortunate events, they can and should turn to their business property insurers to cover what, in many instances, can be staggering losses.

First steps for obtaining coverage for losses from riots, vandalism and civil unrest

For any impacted business owner, the first step is to locate and review his or her business property insurance policy. Once the policy has been located, provide notice of any losses promptly. If the policy is written on a defined risk or peril basis, generally the covered risks or perils will include riots, vandalism, civil commotion, looting and malicious mischief. If the policy is written on a broader and more inclusive all-risk or all-peril basis, any risk or peril causing a loss will be a covered event unless otherwise excluded.[1] Provided that the events surrounding the period of civil unrest are covered perils, the policy should provide basic protection for direct physical damage or loss to covered property, as well as resulting business interruption loss and associated extra expense.

Look to coverage extensions that could apply and provide further coverage

In many instances, a business property policy will also contain a host of coverage extensions that can also be extremely valuable sources for recovery. The following is just a brief overview of some of these additional or supplemental coverages potentially available to impacted business owners.

  • Civil Authority Coverage: Coverage under this extension is provided for a business interruption loss due to an order of civil authority that prevents access to an insured location. Thus, if a curfew is imposed or the public is otherwise prevented by authorities from accessing a business area, resulting business interruption and extra expense coverage may be available. Importantly, coverage is not dependent on the policyholder actually sustaining damage to his or her own property. However, coverage under more restrictive policies will be conditioned on the order of civil authority being issued as a direct result of property damage within the vicinity of the insured location. Less restrictive policies will not contain such a condition and will allow for business interruption coverage whenever business is impacted by an order or civil authority regardless of the existence of property damage.
  • Ingress/Egress Coverage: Pursuant to this supplement, business interruption and extra expense coverage is provided when direct physical damage physically prevents ingress to or egress from an insured location. For example, if customers are physically unable to obtain access to a business because of surrounding physical damage – such as downed power lines – business interruption coverage may be available. As with civil authority coverage, actual physical damage to the policyholder’s own property may not be a prerequisite to coverage.
  • Attraction Property Coverage: Yet another example of a business interruption coverage source available even if there is no direct physical damage to an insured location is attraction property coverage. Under this extension, business interruption coverage may be available if locations neither owned nor operated by the policyholder, but which attract business to the policyholder, sustain physical damage. Examples of such attraction properties may include convention centers, sports venues, theme parks, restaurants, theaters and casinos.
  • Accounts Receivable Coverage: In the event that a policyholder sustains physical loss or damage to his or her accounts receivable records – resulting from an event such as a fire – coverage under this grant will generally be available for any shortfall in the collection of the impacted receivables.
  • Protection and Preservation of Property Coverage: In addition to providing coverage for the costs incurred for actions to temporarily protect or preserve insured property in the event of actual or threatened physical loss or damage, this coverage extension may also apply to fire department charges incurred for responding to a fire at an insured location and the costs incurred for restoring and recharging fire protection systems.

Takeaways for obtaining coverage

As stated above, when confronted with a loss, policyholders should be extremely diligent in providing notice to their carriers as soon as possible. Policyholders must also be mindful that their policies likely contain other time sensitive conditions. For example, a policy may contain a requirement that the policyholder provide a sworn proof of loss within 30 days following the loss. The policy may also provide that the policyholder only has a set amount of time in which to bring suit against the carrier for failure to pay a loss. Failure to abide by these conditions may provide the insurer with technical bases to avoid their coverage obligations.

Above all else, policyholders must not forget that the coverage that they purchase is an asset that can and should be called upon to respond in the event of a loss. A detailed review and understanding of that policy asset is necessary to fully maximize the coverage for which valuable premium was paid.

[1] Terrorism can be an excluded peril under some property policies. While the riots our country has recently witnessed would not ordinarily be thought of as terrorist events, policy definitions can be extremely broad. Fortunately, many policies will specifically exclude riots and related activities from their definition of terrorism.

Authored by: Adam K. Hollander of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP