Most insurance coverage attorneys have at some point come across policy provisions that require them to evaluate whether claims are “related” or “interrelated.” Depending on the context, the answer to that question might alter the number of per claim limits owed, alter the number of deductibles or self-insured retentions owed, or determine whether a claim should be deemed to have been first-made during the policy period. Unfortunately, determining whether something is “related” is an extremely fact-intensive question, and it can be frustratingly difficult to find helpful case law on this issue.
In order to help practitioners struggling with this issue, I recently published an article with the Valparaiso Law Review entitled “Related Acts Provisions: Patterns Amidst the Chaos.” The first half of the article is devoted to explaining general principles and common procedural issues, such as who bears the burden of proving relatedness. The second half divides up the nearly-two hundred decisions by type-of-claim (securities, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, employee dishonesty, and many more), providing a brief summary of the factual finding in each and identifying which factors predominate in each type of claim.
I hope that the article will be a useful research tool to any coverage attorney researching these provisions or attempting to argue that various claims are or are not related. I'm very grateful for the review it received from Randy Maniloff in his October 12, 2016 issue of “Coverage Opinions.” http://coverageopinions.info/Vol5Issue10/RelatedActs.html
“Related Acts Provisions: Patterns Amidst the Chaos,” 50 Val. U. L. Rev. 633 (2016) can be accessed through the firm website for McCullough, Campbell & Lane at www.mcandl.com by clicking on “publications.”