Today’s BIPA Ruling is Brought to You By the Letter I

Important Developments in lL Biometric Information Privacy Act

Some judges have an extraordinary ability to explain their decisions in an easily understood and relatable manner. Such was the case in a very recent decision involving whether an employer’s commercial general liability insurance policy (“CGL”) covered an employee’s claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Tony’s Finer Foods, No. 20-cv-6199, Judge Steven Seeger of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was tasked with deciding whether a standard exclusion in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of its duty to defend a BIPA claim. BIPA is an Illinois statute that, among other things, requires private entities that obtain biometric information from an individual to first inform the individual that the information was being collected and stored and obtain a release from the subject. In the employment context, oftentimes employers collect biometric information (such as fingerprints) for time keeping purposes. In the last seven years, litigation over alleged BIPA violations have exploded and employers often look to their insurance companies to assist in the defense. Judger Seeger ultimately held that the “employment-related practices” exclusion did not preclude insurance coverage, undoubtedly good news for employers.

An “Employment-Related Practices” exclusion is common in CGL policies. Essentially, the exclusion precludes coverage for certain employment-related claims made by employees against their employers. In the policy at issue in the State Automobile case, coverage was specifically excluded for “personal or advertising injury” to “any person” arising out of  “(a) refusal to employ that person; (b) termination of that person’s employment; or (c) employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, or discrimination…”  The court recognized that subparts (a) and (b) were not at issue and the only question was whether the underlying lawsuit was about an injury to the employee arising out of “employment-related practices.”  The insurance company argued that the exclusion applied because the case arose out of the manner in which employees clock in and out of work.  While the argument was “an appealing one,” the court took a closer look at the exclusion and determined that it did not apply. First, the court recognized that the exclusion was the “third part of a trilogy” with the first two parts covering hiring and firing. The judge reasoned that the third subpart, “arising out of employment related practices,” read with parts one and two appears to apply specifically to adverse employment action “and not any and all claims about something that happens at work.”  The judge further stated that even though clocking in or out is an employment practice or policy, the fact that the text then contains a “laundry list” of targeted disciplinary practices, “using one’s finger to clock-in and clock-out is an awkward fit in that string, at best.”  In determining that the third clause, when read in tandem with the first two clauses, could not be interpreted as generally excluding all claims arising out of employment, Judge Seeger cited to the well-known and respected Sesame Street doctrine of “one of these things is not like the others – one of these things just doesn’t belong.”  After recognizing that other courts have come to differing conclusions, the court nonetheless ruled in favor of the employer and denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on whether it had a duty to defend the BIPA claim.

If you would like to discuss these or similar issues in more detail, please contact Howard L. Teplinsky at (312) 368-0100 or hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

What Does your Insurance Policy Actually Cover?

New York Ends the Year with Onerous New Insurance Coverage Disclosure Rules for Defendants in Product Liability Litigation | Product Liability Advocate

Insurance is a key part of managing risk and protecting against unexpected financial losses. Individuals and businesses alike can benefit from the right coverage, whether it be your personal auto policy, commercial general liability policy, or property damage coverage. But don’t assume that just because you have a policy you are fully covered. Insurance policies are often full of exclusions and fine print. Even with the most reputable insurers, policies are rarely “one size fits all.”

A recent Illinois appellate court decision is a prime example. In Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Cheekati, et al., 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the insureds were homeowners who, while unable to sell their property, rented it to a tenant. That tenant was injured when a defective staircase at the home collapsed. The insureds made a claim under their homeowner’s policy with Farmers, undoubtedly expecting they would be covered for the injury occurring in their home. They were not—Farmers denied coverage based on two policy exclusions: the first preluded coverage for bodily injury to any insured or any “resident of the residence premises;” the second precluded coverage for bodily injury “in connection with the rental or holding for rental” of the premises. Based on those exclusions, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Farmers, declaring that it had no duty to defend or provide coverage to its insureds.

The lesson here: review your policy documents carefully and make sure you are getting the coverage you think you are paying for. For more information regarding these or similar issues, please contact Mark L. Evans at mevans@lgattorneys.com or (312) 368-0100.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail