Theodore A. Keyes

May 09, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that the vast majority of cases discussing the duty to defend under New York law will tell you that an insurer has a duty to defend whenever the allegations within the four corners of the complaint potentially give rise to a covered claim. Far fewer cases examine under what circumstances the insurer is required or is even permitted to consider information outside the four corners of the complaint.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

August 24, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that when a company insured by a claims-made insurance policy decides to change carriers, it is critical that counsel or a risk manager assess the need to purchase an extended reporting period at termination of the existing policy. The policy issued by the new carrier may not commence on the same day that the prior policy expires or may restrict coverage.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

January 05, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write: In 1971, the New York State Legislature passed a law mandating that comprehensive general liability policies issued to corporate or industrial insureds exclude pollution coverage for all but sudden and accidental pollution claims. In 1982, that statute was repealed. Nevertheless, more than 25 years after its repeal, the statute continues to impact current insurance coverage disputes.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

January 31, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that it does not appear that the courts intend to ease historical restrictions on punitive damages claims or to open the floodgates to a separate cause of action for damages for bad faith breach of the insurance contract.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

November 09, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that last fall, the First Department adopted a narrow view of the prior knowledge exclusion, finding that the exclusion only applies where the insured law firm has a reasonable belief that claims may be filed against it as a result of its own conduct. In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals disagreed. Based on the Court's rationale, a law firm with knowledge of wrongful conduct by its client may find it very difficult to be comfortable not disclosing the information to its insurer, even if the firm believes its own conduct was beyond reproach.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

August 30, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that in the insurance context, contra proferentum is just another way of saying that ambiguous terms in an insurance policy are to be construed against the insurance company. One can find an endless supply of cases repeating this doctrine like a mantra. However, the applicability of the doctrine may not be as automatic as one might think.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

February 28, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, review recent cases where the courts enforced clearly worded antistacking provisions, providing welcome news to insurers. While continuous bodily injury claims are a consistent source of significant liability, an insurer can at least confine its exposure to a single policy limit for each occurrence.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read

March 06, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a that partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write: On Oct. 16, 2008, the Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department issued an Opinion Letter asserting that director and officer liability (D&O) insurance policies issued in New York must place the duty to defend on the insurance carrier, not the insured.1 If adopted as a rule of law, this opinion letter would seem to have the potential to drastically alter the defense provisions in standard D&O policies. However, because the letter is not binding on the courts, the breadth of its impact remains to be seen.

By Howard B. Epstein And Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

September 21, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, review a recent holding that the D&O insurance policies at issue covered costs incurred to respond to investigations, expanding the scope of coverage from the Southern District decision to include fees paid to an independent consultant and legal costs for the special litigation committee.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

July 02, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, ask: Must an insured party comply with its duties under an insurance contract even where an insurer has refused payment on a claim in breach of the contract?

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read