Howard B. Epstein

December 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Corporate Insurance Law columnists Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes write: While the 'Kokesh' ruling is not an insurance ruling, we wrote at the time (as did others) that it might very well have an impact on pending disputes over the insurability of disgorgement payments. The First Department took notice of the ruling and recently held, relying on Kokesh, that because SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty, disgorged funds did not fall within the definition of loss under the insurance policies at issue.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

7 minute read

September 18, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Corporate Insurance Law columnists Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes write: Upon receipt of a claim, the risk manager or in-house counsel should coordinate with the company's insurance broker to make sure notice is submitted to the insurer. However, even earlier, in anticipation of claims, counsel should review the terms of the relevant insurance policies and develop an understanding of the defense cost coverage provisions.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

8 minute read

June 20, 2018 | FC&S Insurance

If a company did not have insurance for a period of time, does it matter why? Does it matter whether the company did not have insurance because the company…

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

8 minute read

June 15, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Read about this important decision in the Corporate Insurance Law column by Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

1 minute read

April 16, 2018 | FC&S Insurance

When our clients in the financial services industry ask us to identify the important risks covered by their directors and officers (D&O) insurance…

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

March 28, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes discuss how the availability of insurance coverage for defense costs incurred in connection with a regulatory investigation often depends upon the policy definition of “claim.” They highlight the case 'Freedom Specialty Insurance v. Platinum Management' as among recent decisions demonstrating that the courts also understand the importance of advancement of defense costs related to regulatory proceedings.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

January 29, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Corporate Insurance Law columnists Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes write: Over five years later, the courts are still working through property damage and insurance disputes arising out of Hurricane Sandy. In December, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the latest round of a three-party dispute between the insured, the insurer and the broker over the insurance policy limits applicable to a Hurricane Sandy-related flood claim.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

November 24, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Corporate Insurance Law columnists Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes write: Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued opinions that addressed the terms of a Reps and Warranties policy governed, according to the policy terms, by New York law.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

26 minute read

September 19, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Corporate Insurance Law columnists Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes discuss a recent case where the Southern District ruled in favor of an insured that lost funds paid by an employee to a fraudster impersonating a company executive, finding coverage under both the Computer Fraud and the Funds Transfer Fraud sections within the Crime Coverage of the Executive Protection insurance policy.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

July 25, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard Epstein and Theodore Keyes discuss 'Kokesh v. SEC,' where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the SEC's use of disgorgement of profits as a remedy in an enforcement action constitutes a penalty that is subject to the federal five-year statute of limitations. They write: The question at issue for the Kokesh court was whether SEC disgorgement is a penalty. The question for the insurance community is whether it is insurable. The question for us is whether these two issues may overlap.

By By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read