Is BIPA the Proverbial “Next Big Thing”? Plaintiffs’ lawyers are always on the lookout for “the next big thing.” It may be here. In 2008, Illinois became the first state to enact a biometric privacy law that prohibits private companies from collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, or otherwise obtaining a person’s biometric information without informing and receiving written consent.... Read More
In May 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on the seminal Illinois insurance coverage case for underlying actions alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2018) (“BIPA”), West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978. It held West Bend had a duty to defend because the... Read More
“Catch-All” Statutory Violation Exclusion Ambiguous The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Rovner, applying Illinois law, affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings holding that an insurer had a duty to defend two class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). The court determined the language of the catch-all provision of the statutory... Read More
Exclusions Not Applicable to Bar Personal and Advertising Coverage The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in an opinion by Judge Alonso, applying Illinois law, denied an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Continental Western Insurance Company (“Continental”) had a duty to defend its insured, Tony’s Finer Foods Enterprises (“Tony’s”), in an underlying... Read More
Defense Costs Owed under Media Liability Coverage The Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, applying New York law due to a choice of law provision, held that Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (“Lloyd’s”) had an obligation to pay for defense expenses for its insured, a technology company, in an underlying lawsuit that alleged the insured violated the Illinois... Read More
Defense Expenses Exhaust SIR The Southern District of Florida, applying Florida law, held that class action defense expenses incurred by a Florida agricultural business eroded the applicable $1 million self-insured retention (“SIR”) despite the fact that the policy contained another contradictory SIR endorsement. The coverage dispute arose when US Sugar Corporation (“US Sugar”) successfully defended itself against a class-action lawsuit alleging... Read More
