magnifying glass and circuit board

Insurance coverage for SEC investigation of your ICO?

November 5, 2018

A question that businesses contemplating an initial coin offering (ICO) should consider is whether they have insurance coverage for an SEC or other government investigation. This is an excellent analysis of the question on the D&O Diary. Guest Post: ICO-Related Claims and Insurance Coverage: Questions You Should be Asking   Lisa Bragança recovers losses for investors all over the country, protects whistleblowers, and defends individuals and businesses in government investigations. As a Branch Chief with the SEC Division of Enforcement, Lisa conducted and supervised insider trading investigations and a wide range of investment fraud and Wall Street misconduct. Lisa represents participants in the digital coin/cryptocurrency industry. You can reach Lisa at (847) 906-3460 or Lisa@SECDefenseAttorney.com. www.SECDefenseAttorney.com Disclaimer: This information is for general purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. The information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.  

Read more
Rattlesnake

Good news for bad faith claimants

October 2, 2017

In some states the threshold for proving that an insurance carrier has denied a claim in bad faith is unreasonably high — often requiring proof that the carrier denied the claim out of malice or ill will. Pennsylvania has not joined those states. In late September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff seeking to prove bad faith denial of an insurance claim under Pennsylvania law does not have to prove the insurance carrier did so as a result of subjective ill will or malice.

Read more

Insurance bad faith award upheld by federal appellate court

July 10, 2017

It is not surprising when an insurer refuses to pay a covered claim. It is surprising when an insurer gets hit with a court order to pay millions for bad faith denial of a customer’s claim. And it is even more surprising when a federal appellate court upholds that order, as the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did on July 7, 2017.   http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201614225.pdf The case arises out of a 2005 automobile accident that occurred when a Nationwide insured driver ran a red light, killing a young mother who was driving the car he hit. After the accident, Nationwide’s insured pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide. Nationwide had the opportunity to settle the wrongful death and estate claims of the mother’s surviving family members for the $100,000 policy limits and certain releases. Nationwide would only agree to settle if the family agree to indemnify Nationwide for any other claims or payments sought under the Nationwide policy. The family refused and filed a wrongful death case in Georgia state court against the insured driver. A jury awarded the family $5.83 million in wrongful death damages. After the verdict, the insured driver assigned to the family his right to bring a claim against Nationwide for bad faith failure to settle. The family filed suit against Nationwide in Georgia federal court. The parties agreed that a jury would determine liability, leaving the determination of damages to the judge. Nationwide argued that it was unfairly “set up” for bad faith and that that there is no tort of bad faith denial of insurance claim. The jury found Nationwide liable for negligent or bad faith failure to settle the claims made by the family against Nationwide’s insured. The district judge then ordered Nationwide to pay the family $5,730,000 in damages, plus interest of, at that time, $2,405,873. Nationwide appealed and lost. Nationwide has litigated this case for 12 years. Isn’t it about time to pay Nationwide? The case is Jesus Camacho, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 16-14225.

Read more