The Calm Before the Storm Is the Time to Consider Insurance Coverage

'Efficient Proximate Cause'

Courts have taken different approaches in determining the cause or causes of loss or damage. For example, many courts have adopted the “efficient proximate cause” doctrine, which generally “permits recovery ' for a loss caused by a combination of a covered risk and an excluded risk ' if the covered risk was the efficient proximate cause of the loss.” 7 COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D ' 101:55 (2012). The “efficient proximate cause” of the loss “is the one that sets the other causes in motion that, in an unbroken sequence, produced the result for which recovery is sought.” Id. In other words, a covered peril (such as a storm) cannot be excluded, or forced into a sublimit, simply because the chain of loss-producing events essentially ended in a “flood.”

'Concurrent Causation'

Another approach is the “concurrent causation” doctrine, which generally “takes the approach that coverage should be permitted whenever two or more causes do appreciably contribute to the loss and at least one of the causes is a risk which is covered under the terms of the policy.” Id. Causation issues can be and often are nuanced and complex.

'Anti-Concurrent Causation'

In what can result in an unfortunate surprise to an insured facing loss caused by covered and excluded perils, such as the wind and water occasioned by all major storm events, some policies contain anti-concurrent causation (ACC) language, which purports to exclude or sublimit a loss if any part of the causal chain involves the excluded or limited peril ' even if there are multiple causes of loss, including covered causes of loss. By way of example, the current ISO “Standard Property Policy” contains the following ACC language:

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following [causes or events]. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
CP 00 99 10 12 (2012), ' B.1.

Not surprisingly, a number of courts have held that ACC provisions that attempt to contract around the “concurrent cause” and “efficient proximate cause” doctrines are invalid. See, e.g., Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Lexington Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 4564677, at *4, *15 (La. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2013) (considering language excluding loss or damage “caused by, arising out of, contributed to, or resulting from [mold] ' regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to such loss” and concluding that such language “cannot be used to divest an insured of their right to be indemnified for covered losses”); Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 20 So. 3d 60, 612, 617 (Miss. 2009) (considering language stating that the insurer does “not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any excluded peril “regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss” and concluding that “ the ACC clause has no application for losses caused by wind peril” and that “[a]n insurer may not abrogate its duty to indemnify for such loss by the occurrence of a subsequent, excluded cause or event”) (court's emphasis); Murray v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 509 S.E.2d 1, 13, 15 (W.Va. 1998) (considering language stating that the insurer “do[es] not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more ' excluded events ' regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss” and concluding that “[b]ecause [the insurer]'s 'clause conflicts with the reasonable expectations of the parties, it should be construed to allow coverage for losses proximately caused by a covered risk, and deny coverage only when an excepted risk is the efficient proximate cause of the loss”); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann, 773 P.2d 413, 414, 416 (Wash. 1989) (considering language stating that the insurer does “not cover loss caused by any of the following excluded perils, whether occurring alone or in any sequence with a covered peril” and concluding that the insurer may not “ circumvent the 'efficient proximate cause' rule ' and deny coverage when a covered peril sets in motion a causal chain the last link of which is an excluded peril”) (court's emphasis).

In addition, some states have statutes that limit application of ACC clauses. See, e.g., CAL INS. CODE ' 530 (“An insurer is liable for a loss of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss; but he is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause.”); N.D. CENT. CODE ' 26.1-32-01 (“An insurer is liable for a loss proximately caused by a peril insured against even though a peril not contemplated by the insurance contract may have been a remote cause of the loss. An insurer is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause. The efficient proximate cause doctrine applies only if separate, distinct, and totally unrelated causes contribute to the loss.”).

Recently, in the wake of Sandy, new legislation has been introduced that would further limit the applicable ACC clauses. For example, a bill recently introduced in the New York Senate would prohibit an insurer from denying or excluding coverage for loss or damage for a covered peril solely because an excluded peril was a contributing factor or occurred simultaneously with the covered peril. N.Y. Senate Bill 5581 (May 22, 2013). The bill would amend the state's insurance law by adding the following new section 3455:

S 3455. Anti-concurrent Causation Clauses. An insurer shall not deny or exclude coverage for any claim for loss or damage that would otherwise be covered by a policy solely because an event or peril not covered under the policy or specifically excluded under the policy was a contributing factor in such loss or damage or occurred simultaneously with the event or peril that was covered.

Id., Section 1. The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to claims made on or after such effective date.” Id., Section 2.

A separate, narrower bill introduced in the New York Assembly (the House) would specify that where there is an excluded flood event and a covered peril (such as wind), the insurer shall not deny coverage for loss or damage caused by the covered peril:

S 3455. Anti-concurrent Causation Clauses. (A) When a flood event not covered under a policy or specifically excluded under a policy is a contributing factor in or occurs simultaneously as a covered event or peril, the insurer shall not deny or exclude coverage for the loss or damage caused by the covered event or peril. However, nothing shall obligate the insurer to pay for any loss or damage caused by the flood event that is not covered or is excluded.

N.Y. Assembly Bill 7455 (May 17, 2013), Section 1(A).

The bill introduced in the Assembly also requires disclosure of causation-related provisions to be provided to the policyholder prior to purchase of the policy:

(B) if an insurer issues a policy that includes a provision that allows the insurer to determine whether loss or damage caused by a covered peril may or may not be covered partially or wholly based upon whether a peril that is excluded or not covered under the policy was the proximate or remote cause of the covered loss or damage, the insurer must clearly state in the policy (1) which peril excluded or not covered under the policy must cause, proximately or remotely, the covered peril or perils; and (2) in each specific instance, whether the causation must be proximate or remote to result in a limitation in coverage. The insurer must disclose this provision to the policyholder prior to the sale or purchase of the policy.

Id., Section 1(B).' The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all policies issued or renewed after such effective date.” N.Y. Assembly Bill 7455 (May 17, 2013), Section 2.

The New York State Assembly's insurance committee members who approved this bill noted that the bill will “rectify” circumstances in which, due to ACC clauses, “homeowners found themselves without adequate insurance coverage at a time when they needed it the most.” See A07455 Memo, http://bit.ly/1ixev9z. Although the bill may have been prompted by homeowners' claims, however, the text is not so limited.

Another bill introduced in the New York Assembly also addresses causation issues and would amend the insurance code to prohibit, among other things, a denial of business interruption coverage caused by a covered peril that “result[s] from a peril not insured against or expressly excluded under the policy ' .” N.Y. Assembly Bill 7452'A (May 17, 2013), Section 3. “Business interruption insurance” would be defined as “coverage against actual loss resulting from necessary interruption of business due to damage or destruction of property by a peril insured against.” See id., Section 2 (incorporating N.Y. INS. LAW ' 5401(d)(4)). The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all policies issued or renewed after such effective date.” Id., Section 4.

Companies are advised to keep causation issues in mind and, where a policy contains a potentially applicable ACC clause, confirm whether the clause may be applicable based on the specific facts at issue and enforceable under applicable law.

Keep Good Records

Action taken in the wake of a storm can be critical to maximizing insurance recovery. It is advisable for companies to keep complete and accurate records concerning all elements of loss, including lost sales and revenues, and extra expenses that have been incurred. In addition, it is advisable that accounting procedures be established to collect and maintain adequate supporting documentation for claimed losses. Proving losses, including business interruption and contingent business interruption losses, can be challenging. Complete and accurate records will facilitate the process.

In addition, given the complexities that may be involved in documenting and proving a loss, it is important to assemble a capable insurance recovery team. Retention of the services of a forensic accountant and other claim professionals, working with risk management, in-house legal and experienced insurance coverage counsel, is often advisable in formulating a claim ' particularly a claim for business interruption coverage. And it is important to remember that certain claim preparation expenses may be covered under the insurance policy. A policy may contain, for example, a clause similar to the following:

This policy is extended to cover the reasonable fees or charges payable to consultants or other professionals for producing and certifying any proof, information or evidence as may be required by the Underwriters in order to arrive at the loss payable under this policy.' Coverage is excluded for Public Adjuster fees and Attorney fees.

Understand How to Effectively Present a Claim

The manner in which a claim is presented may have a significant impact upon the insured's ultimate recovery. As discussed above, policies may have various exclusions, sublimits or deductibles depending on the particular peril or event causing the loss. The way in which the insured characterizes a loss and presents its claim may impact upon whether these limiting features of the policy are applied to its claim. In all cases, an insured should evaluate its loss information in light of the policy wording and applicable law, and present the claim to the insurer or insurers in a coverage-promoting manner. In addition, insureds should pay attention to potentially applicable sub-limits and deductibles.

Most policies identify specific procedures to follow in presenting and pursuing a claim and usually incorporate time deadlines and other requirements. These provisions usually include the following:

1. Proof of Loss

Property policies generally require a sworn “proof of loss” summarizing the amount and extent of the damage or loss. Policies often require that a proof of loss be submitted within a relatively short period of time following a storm (or other) event. For example, the ISO standard form states that the insured must “[s]end us a signed, sworn proof of loss containing the information we request to investigate the claim. You must do this within 60 days after our request.” CP 00 99 10 12 (2012), ' G.3.a.(7). Insurers often agree to extend such deadlines, and an insured should consider requesting a written agreement extending the time for submission of a proof of loss (and potentially other policy conditions) depending on the nature of the loss. As noted above, depending on the loss, it may be advisable to retain a forensic accountant and other outside claims professionals in order to properly document a company's loss and otherwise support the claim.

2. Notice of Loss

Policies may require the insured to notify the insurance company “as soon as practicable” or within a specified period after the insured becomes aware of circumstances that may lead to a claim. For example, the ISO standard form states that the insured must provide “prompt notice of the loss or damage ' .” Id., ' G.3.a.(2). It generally is advisable to notify all potential insurers, including excess insurers, in accordance with the terms of the insurance policies, which often contain specific provisions regarding how (in addition to when) to provide notice of a claim.

3. Suit Limitation

Policies may include “suit limitation” provisions, which generally provide that an action or suit to recover under the policies must be bought within a specified time frame (12 months, for example) after inception of loss. Although these provisions may not be enforceable if shorter than the applicable statute of limitations, it is important that insureds take all appropriate steps to ensure that suits, if necessary, are filed in a timely fashion.

Failure to comply with these time-sensitive procedural requirements, insurers will argue, may invalidate an otherwise covered claim. Therefore, careful advance attention to these potential requirements is recommended. In addition, virtually all policies contain general “cooperation” provisions obligating the insured to cooperate with the insurer in its investigation of the loss. Provisions for an “appraisal” are also often included.

Conclusion

Insurance is a valuable asset. Businesses facing losses resulting from hurricanes and other natural disasters may have substantial financial protection through their insurance policies. A review of a company's insurance program before the next storm strikes will position the company to act promptly and efficiently to recover all insurance coverage that may be available. Experienced insurance coverage counsel may be able to assist an insured in identifying coverage, assessing the viability and strength of a potential claim, communicating with the insurers' representatives, and ultimately maximizing the company's insurance recovery.

Roberta D. Anderson is a partner in K&L Gates LLP's Insurance Coverage practice group and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors.

Last month, we discussed the fact that, although there were no major hurricanes in 2013, the calm before the next storm is an opportune time for a company to consider the adequacy of its insurance program. We presented an overview of two common insurance-related considerations that may assist companies to maximize insurance recoveries in the wake of the next major storm event or other natural disaster. We discuss more considerations herein.

Look Out for Potential Causation Issues

In the case of Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters, there may be multiple causes of loss. These may include wind, flooding and actions of civil authority. Identifying the cause or causes of loss is important because policies sometimes exclude or sublimit coverage for certain causes of loss, but not others. By way of example, as noted in Part One of this article, property policies often exclude “flood” or contain sublimits applicable to “flood” that are substantially lower than the otherwise applicable policy limits. Likewise, “named” windstorms such as Superstorm Sandy may be subject to higher self-insurance features. Sandy has presented numerous complex factual and legal issues surrounding the distinction between “windstorm” and “flood” damage.

'Efficient Proximate Cause'

Courts have taken different approaches in determining the cause or causes of loss or damage. For example, many courts have adopted the “efficient proximate cause” doctrine, which generally “permits recovery ' for a loss caused by a combination of a covered risk and an excluded risk ' if the covered risk was the efficient proximate cause of the loss.” 7 COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D ' 101:55 (2012). The “efficient proximate cause” of the loss “is the one that sets the other causes in motion that, in an unbroken sequence, produced the result for which recovery is sought.” Id. In other words, a covered peril (such as a storm) cannot be excluded, or forced into a sublimit, simply because the chain of loss-producing events essentially ended in a “flood.”

'Concurrent Causation'

Another approach is the “concurrent causation” doctrine, which generally “takes the approach that coverage should be permitted whenever two or more causes do appreciably contribute to the loss and at least one of the causes is a risk which is covered under the terms of the policy.” Id. Causation issues can be and often are nuanced and complex.

'Anti-Concurrent Causation'

In what can result in an unfortunate surprise to an insured facing loss caused by covered and excluded perils, such as the wind and water occasioned by all major storm events, some policies contain anti-concurrent causation (ACC) language, which purports to exclude or sublimit a loss if any part of the causal chain involves the excluded or limited peril ' even if there are multiple causes of loss, including covered causes of loss. By way of example, the current ISO “Standard Property Policy” contains the following ACC language:

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following [causes or events]. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
CP 00 99 10 12 (2012), ' B.1.

Not surprisingly, a number of courts have held that ACC provisions that attempt to contract around the “concurrent cause” and “efficient proximate cause” doctrines are invalid. See, e.g., Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Lexington Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 4564677, at *4, *15 (La. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2013) (considering language excluding loss or damage “caused by, arising out of, contributed to, or resulting from [mold] ' regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to such loss” and concluding that such language “cannot be used to divest an insured of their right to be indemnified for covered losses”); Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n , 20 So. 3d 60, 612, 617 (Miss. 2009) (considering language stating that the insurer does “not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any excluded peril “regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss ” and concluding that “ the ACC clause has no application for losses caused by wind peril” and that “[a]n insurer may not abrogate its duty to indemnify for such loss by the occurrence of a subsequent, excluded cause or event”) (court's emphasis); Murray v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. , 509 S.E.2d 1, 13, 15 (W.Va. 1998) (considering language stating that the insurer “do[es] not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more ' excluded events ' regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss” and concluding that “[b]ecause [the insurer]'s 'clause conflicts with the reasonable expectations of the parties, it should be construed to allow coverage for losses proximately caused by a covered risk, and deny coverage only when an excepted risk is the efficient proximate cause of the loss”); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann , 773 P.2d 413, 414, 416 (Wash. 1989) (considering language stating that the insurer does “not cover loss caused by any of the following excluded perils, whether occurring alone or in any sequence with a covered peril ” and concluding that the insurer may not “ circumvent the 'efficient proximate cause' rule ' and deny coverage when a covered peril sets in motion a causal chain the last link of which is an excluded peril”) (court's emphasis).

In addition, some states have statutes that limit application of ACC clauses. See, e.g., CAL INS. CODE ' 530 (“An insurer is liable for a loss of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss; but he is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause.”); N.D. CENT. CODE ' 26.1-32-01 (“An insurer is liable for a loss proximately caused by a peril insured against even though a peril not contemplated by the insurance contract may have been a remote cause of the loss. An insurer is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause. The efficient proximate cause doctrine applies only if separate, distinct, and totally unrelated causes contribute to the loss.”).

Recently, in the wake of Sandy, new legislation has been introduced that would further limit the applicable ACC clauses. For example, a bill recently introduced in the New York Senate would prohibit an insurer from denying or excluding coverage for loss or damage for a covered peril solely because an excluded peril was a contributing factor or occurred simultaneously with the covered peril. N.Y. Senate Bill 5581 (May 22, 2013). The bill would amend the state's insurance law by adding the following new section 3455:

S 3455. Anti-concurrent Causation Clauses. An insurer shall not deny or exclude coverage for any claim for loss or damage that would otherwise be covered by a policy solely because an event or peril not covered under the policy or specifically excluded under the policy was a contributing factor in such loss or damage or occurred simultaneously with the event or peril that was covered.

Id., Section 1. The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to claims made on or after such effective date.” Id., Section 2.

A separate, narrower bill introduced in the New York Assembly (the House) would specify that where there is an excluded flood event and a covered peril (such as wind), the insurer shall not deny coverage for loss or damage caused by the covered peril:

S 3455. Anti-concurrent Causation Clauses. (A) When a flood event not covered under a policy or specifically excluded under a policy is a contributing factor in or occurs simultaneously as a covered event or peril, the insurer shall not deny or exclude coverage for the loss or damage caused by the covered event or peril. However, nothing shall obligate the insurer to pay for any loss or damage caused by the flood event that is not covered or is excluded.

N.Y. Assembly Bill 7455 (May 17, 2013), Section 1(A).

The bill introduced in the Assembly also requires disclosure of causation-related provisions to be provided to the policyholder prior to purchase of the policy:

(B) if an insurer issues a policy that includes a provision that allows the insurer to determine whether loss or damage caused by a covered peril may or may not be covered partially or wholly based upon whether a peril that is excluded or not covered under the policy was the proximate or remote cause of the covered loss or damage, the insurer must clearly state in the policy (1) which peril excluded or not covered under the policy must cause, proximately or remotely, the covered peril or perils; and (2) in each specific instance, whether the causation must be proximate or remote to result in a limitation in coverage. The insurer must disclose this provision to the policyholder prior to the sale or purchase of the policy.

Id., Section 1(B).' The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all policies issued or renewed after such effective date.” N.Y. Assembly Bill 7455 (May 17, 2013), Section 2.

The New York State Assembly's insurance committee members who approved this bill noted that the bill will “rectify” circumstances in which, due to ACC clauses, “homeowners found themselves without adequate insurance coverage at a time when they needed it the most.” See A07455 Memo, http://bit.ly/1ixev9z. Although the bill may have been prompted by homeowners' claims, however, the text is not so limited.

Another bill introduced in the New York Assembly also addresses causation issues and would amend the insurance code to prohibit, among other things, a denial of business interruption coverage caused by a covered peril that “result[s] from a peril not insured against or expressly excluded under the policy ' .” N.Y. Assembly Bill 7452'A (May 17, 2013), Section 3. “Business interruption insurance” would be defined as “coverage against actual loss resulting from necessary interruption of business due to damage or destruction of property by a peril insured against.” See id., Section 2 (incorporating N.Y. INS. LAW ' 5401(d)(4)). The bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all policies issued or renewed after such effective date.” Id., Section 4.

Companies are advised to keep causation issues in mind and, where a policy contains a potentially applicable ACC clause, confirm whether the clause may be applicable based on the specific facts at issue and enforceable under applicable law.

Keep Good Records

Action taken in the wake of a storm can be critical to maximizing insurance recovery. It is advisable for companies to keep complete and accurate records concerning all elements of loss, including lost sales and revenues, and extra expenses that have been incurred. In addition, it is advisable that accounting procedures be established to collect and maintain adequate supporting documentation for claimed losses. Proving losses, including business interruption and contingent business interruption losses, can be challenging. Complete and accurate records will facilitate the process.

In addition, given the complexities that may be involved in documenting and proving a loss, it is important to assemble a capable insurance recovery team. Retention of the services of a forensic accountant and other claim professionals, working with risk management, in-house legal and experienced insurance coverage counsel, is often advisable in formulating a claim ' particularly a claim for business interruption coverage. And it is important to remember that certain claim preparation expenses may be covered under the insurance policy. A policy may contain, for example, a clause similar to the following:

This policy is extended to cover the reasonable fees or charges payable to consultants or other professionals for producing and certifying any proof, information or evidence as may be required by the Underwriters in order to arrive at the loss payable under this policy.' Coverage is excluded for Public Adjuster fees and Attorney fees.

Understand How to Effectively Present a Claim

The manner in which a claim is presented may have a significant impact upon the insured's ultimate recovery. As discussed above, policies may have various exclusions, sublimits or deductibles depending on the particular peril or event causing the loss. The way in which the insured characterizes a loss and presents its claim may impact upon whether these limiting features of the policy are applied to its claim. In all cases, an insured should evaluate its loss information in light of the policy wording and applicable law, and present the claim to the insurer or insurers in a coverage-promoting manner. In addition, insureds should pay attention to potentially applicable sub-limits and deductibles.

Most policies identify specific procedures to follow in presenting and pursuing a claim and usually incorporate time deadlines and other requirements. These provisions usually include the following:

1. Proof of Loss

Property policies generally require a sworn “proof of loss” summarizing the amount and extent of the damage or loss. Policies often require that a proof of loss be submitted within a relatively short period of time following a storm (or other) event. For example, the ISO standard form states that the insured must “[s]end us a signed, sworn proof of loss containing the information we request to investigate the claim. You must do this within 60 days after our request.” CP 00 99 10 12 (2012), ' G.3.a.(7). Insurers often agree to extend such deadlines, and an insured should consider requesting a written agreement extending the time for submission of a proof of loss (and potentially other policy conditions) depending on the nature of the loss. As noted above, depending on the loss, it may be advisable to retain a forensic accountant and other outside claims professionals in order to properly document a company's loss and otherwise support the claim.

2. Notice of Loss

Policies may require the insured to notify the insurance company “as soon as practicable” or within a specified period after the insured becomes aware of circumstances that may lead to a claim. For example, the ISO standard form states that the insured must provide “prompt notice of the loss or damage ' .” Id., ' G.3.a.(2). It generally is advisable to notify all potential insurers, including excess insurers, in accordance with the terms of the insurance policies, which often contain specific provisions regarding how (in addition to when) to provide notice of a claim.

3. Suit Limitation

Policies may include “suit limitation” provisions, which generally provide that an action or suit to recover under the policies must be bought within a specified time frame (12 months, for example) after inception of loss. Although these provisions may not be enforceable if shorter than the applicable statute of limitations, it is important that insureds take all appropriate steps to ensure that suits, if necessary, are filed in a timely fashion.

Failure to comply with these time-sensitive procedural requirements, insurers will argue, may invalidate an otherwise covered claim. Therefore, careful advance attention to these potential requirements is recommended. In addition, virtually all policies contain general “cooperation” provisions obligating the insured to cooperate with the insurer in its investigation of the loss. Provisions for an “appraisal” are also often included.

Conclusion

Insurance is a valuable asset. Businesses facing losses resulting from hurricanes and other natural disasters may have substantial financial protection through their insurance policies. A review of a company's insurance program before the next storm strikes will position the company to act promptly and efficiently to recover all insurance coverage that may be available. Experienced insurance coverage counsel may be able to assist an insured in identifying coverage, assessing the viability and strength of a potential claim, communicating with the insurers' representatives, and ultimately maximizing the company's insurance recovery.

Roberta D. Anderson is a partner in K&L Gates LLP's Insurance Coverage practice group and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors.