Insurance Law News Twitter Bot

by Devon Bodey

About

This TwitterBot, @InsureLawNews, was designed to monitor information on the Web and tweet out posts when changes in information occurs. This particular bot monitors two internet blogs that publish news on insurance law. These blogs highlight important information such as new legislation, policy reform, and notable court cases.

This TwitterBot is intended to provide those who work in the field of insurance law with current news updates, informing followers of current issues and changes in the field that may spark their interest.

Scraping and Saving

In order for @InsureLawNews to publish tweets, I had to find sources to "scrape". Scraping is a technique that extracts data from web-sources. This scraped data is saved in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet I used was a Google sheet via the API. A copy of this spreadsheet can be found here. This Google spreadsheet is linked to my TwitterBot through a unique identification key. This spreadsheet compiles the information that has been scraped from the internet, logs it, and ensures that repeat tweets are not posted.

Prior to finding specific sources to scrape, it is important to run a search and make sure that the information being scraped is not prohibited under the CFAA. In order to test a source prior to scraping its information "robots.txt" can be added to the end of the web address. It is also important to look at the websites terms and conditions to verify that they have not expressly prohibited secondhand publication, or unpermitted use. In conducting a thorough search, I was luckily unable to find any information which indicated that the sources disallowed scraping of the information they publish.

To ensure the TwitterBot continually tweets information every time one of the blogs posts a new post, I included a regular expression into my code. To format this regular expression I used regex101. The regular expression I used differs for both blogs. However, both are coded to post the title of the blog post and the link to the source.

Tweet

This TwitterBot scrapes and saves news updates that are posted on both "Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law" blog and "Insurance Coverage Law Blog". This information is then posted on Twitter. Anytime either blog publishes an update, the TwitterBot will tweet out this information. As above mentioned, the tweet will contain the title of the article, and a link to the source. Most tweets should contain the full title of the article, however, due to Twitter's 140 character limit, the TwitterBot is designed to tweet only tweet the first 108 characters of the article title. This avoids complication, and ensures that a majority of the article title, and a complete link will be seamlessly tweeted.

Challenges and Improvements

The most challenging thing for me while crafting my TwitterBot was adding a second blog to my code. Although the process was the exact same as adding the first, in adding a second, attention to detail became extremely important. For the first source, the output numbers were "1" and "2". Thus, when adding a second source, I had to make sure all updates were changed to "3" and "4" to avoid error and overlap. I also had to make sure that a tweet would be published any time either source published something new and not only when both sources published new articles. This process took a good amount of trial and error. However, in the end the TwitterBot correctly posted each time one of the sources had an update.

To test the workings of my TwitterBot, I cleared my Google spreadsheet, deleted any and all tweets, and ran my code numerous times. This allowed me to notice small details I wanted to change, while making sure that the bot was tweeting as it was supposed to. One thing that I noticed throughout this testing phase was that I wanted to insert elipses inbetween the article title and link, especially when the title got cut short due to Twitter's character limits. This resulted in me testing out different spacing and formatting of elipsis such as, "..." and ". . .", to see which I found the most visually appealing.

If I was to add to this TwitterBot, I would ideally like to add more sources. Both of the blogs I used, although extremely informative and thorough, post somewhat infrequently. For the TwitterBot to truly publish "news", it would be ideal for regular daily updates to occur. By adding more sources this would be possible. Also, by adding more sources, bias would be avoided and followers would obtain a more holistic understanding of issues and updates in the field of insurance law.

Adapted from the notebook found at How to Build a Law Bot

In [1]:
# Load the module for visiting and reading websites.
import urllib.request
# Load the module for running regular expressions (regex).
import re 
# Load the module for date and time stuff.
import datetime
# Define the variable now as equal to the current date and time.
now = datetime.datetime.now()
In [91]:
# Set the URL you want to scrape.
url_1 = "http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/court-cases/"
url_2 = "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com"

# If you want to scrape data from multiple pages, you can, 
# just replicate the above and below but change url_1 to url_2 et al.
In [92]:
# Load the module for accessing Google Sheets.
import gspread
# Load the module needed for securely communicating with Google Sheets.
from oauth2client.service_account import ServiceAccountCredentials
# The scope for your access credentials
scope = ['https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds']

# Your spreadsheet's ID
document_key = "1owZJO_V-Wd1WT1QhP1PVLA2iGa37UezwY3aapWSO6VI" 
#              ^^^^^^^^^^^ SWAP OUT FOR YOUR DOCUMENT ID/KEY
# Your Google project's .json key
credentials = ServiceAccountCredentials.from_json_keyfile_name('../../../../../twitterbotkey.json', scope)
#                                                                              ^^^^^^^^ SWAP OUT FOR YOUR JSON KEY
# Use your credentials to authorize yourself.
gc = gspread.authorize(credentials)
# Open up the Sheet with the defined ID.
wks = gc.open_by_key(document_key)

#########################################
#
#  NOTE: The name of the sheet you are 
#  trying to access should be in the 
#  parenthetical below (e.g., Data). By
#  Default this is probably "Sheet1".
#
#########################################
worksheet = wks.worksheet("Sheet1")

# Count the number of rows in your Sheet &
# resize to remove blank rows.
worksheet.resize(worksheet.row_count)
In [93]:
# Print out the old values stored in your sheet 
# Note: The first time you run this code, it will be empty as nothing has yet to be stored in your sheet.

print(worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count))
#############################
# DELETE CELL AFTER TESTING
#############################
['', '', '', '', '']
In [94]:
# Import the relevant Twitter libraries so you can use Twitter.
import twitter
from twitter import TwitterError

# create the following four text files and add them to the same diretctry as you 
# Google API key. In each file add the appropriate value found when retrieving your 
# Twitter credentials

with open('../../../../../key.txt', 'r') as myfile:
    key=myfile.read()
    
with open('../../../../../secret.txt', 'r') as myfile:
    secret=myfile.read()
    
with open('../../../../../token_key.txt', 'r') as myfile:
    token_key=myfile.read()

with open('../../../../../token_secret.txt', 'r') as myfile:
    token_secret=myfile.read()

# Set you Twitter API credentials.
api = twitter.Api(consumer_key=key,
                  consumer_secret=secret,
                  access_token_key=token_key,
                  access_token_secret=token_secret)

Read the contents of your first webpage

When you run the next cell, your program will visit the first URL you defined above. It will then print out that page's HTML.

In [95]:
p_1 = urllib.request.build_opener(urllib.request.HTTPCookieProcessor).open(url_1).read()
print(p_1)
b'<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html lang="en-US" prefix="og: http://ogp.me/ns#" class="no-js no-svg">\n<head>\n<meta charset="UTF-8">\n<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">\n<link rel="profile" href="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">\n\n<script>(function(html){html.className = html.className.replace(/\\bno-js\\b/,\'js\')})(document.documentElement);</script>\n<title>Court Cases Archives &#8902; Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law</title>\n\n<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v5.6.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->\n<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/>\n<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/court-cases/" />\n<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />\n<meta property="og:type" content="object" />\n<meta property="og:title" content="Court Cases Archives &#8902; Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law" />\n<meta property="og:url" content="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/court-cases/" />\n<meta property="og:site_name" content="Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law" />\n<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />\n<meta name="twitter:title" content="Court Cases Archives &#8902; Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law" />\n<script type=\'application/ld+json\'>{"@context":"http:\\/\\/schema.org","@type":"WebSite","@id":"#website","url":"http:\\/\\/www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com\\/","name":"Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law","potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":"http:\\/\\/www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com\\/?s={search_term_string}","query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}</script>\n<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->\n\n<link rel=\'dns-prefetch\' href=\'//fonts.googleapis.com\' />\n<link rel=\'dns-prefetch\' href=\'//s.w.org\' />\n<link href=\'https://fonts.gstatic.com\' crossorigin rel=\'preconnect\' />\n<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law &raquo; Feed" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/feed/" />\n<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law &raquo; Comments Feed" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/comments/feed/" />\n<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law &raquo; Court Cases Category Feed" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/court-cases/feed/" />\n\t\t<script type="text/javascript">\n\t\t\twindow._wpemojiSettings = {"baseUrl":"https:\\/\\/s.w.org\\/images\\/core\\/emoji\\/2.3\\/72x72\\/","ext":".png","svgUrl":"https:\\/\\/s.w.org\\/images\\/core\\/emoji\\/2.3\\/svg\\/","svgExt":".svg","source":{"concatemoji":"http:\\/\\/www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com\\/wp-includes\\/js\\/wp-emoji-release.min.js?ver=4.8.2"}};\n\t\t\t!function(a,b,c){function d(a){var b,c,d,e,f=String.fromCharCode;if(!k||!k.fillText)return!1;switch(k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.textBaseline="top",k.font="600 32px Arial",a){case"flag":return k.fillText(f(55356,56826,55356,56819),0,0),b=j.toDataURL(),k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55356,56826,8203,55356,56819),0,0),c=j.toDataURL(),b!==c&&(k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55356,57332,56128,56423,56128,56418,56128,56421,56128,56430,56128,56423,56128,56447),0,0),b=j.toDataURL(),k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55356,57332,8203,56128,56423,8203,56128,56418,8203,56128,56421,8203,56128,56430,8203,56128,56423,8203,56128,56447),0,0),c=j.toDataURL(),b!==c);case"emoji4":return k.fillText(f(55358,56794,8205,9794,65039),0,0),d=j.toDataURL(),k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55358,56794,8203,9794,65039),0,0),e=j.toDataURL(),d!==e}return!1}function e(a){var c=b.createElement("script");c.src=a,c.defer=c.type="text/javascript",b.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(c)}var f,g,h,i,j=b.createElement("canvas"),k=j.getContext&&j.getContext("2d");for(i=Array("flag","emoji4"),c.supports={everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},h=0;h<i.length;h++)c.supports[i[h]]=d(i[h]),c.supports.everything=c.supports.everything&&c.supports[i[h]],"flag"!==i[h]&&(c.supports.everythingExceptFlag=c.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&c.supports[i[h]]);c.supports.everythingExceptFlag=c.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&!c.supports.flag,c.DOMReady=!1,c.readyCallback=function(){c.DOMReady=!0},c.supports.everything||(g=function(){c.readyCallback()},b.addEventListener?(b.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",g,!1),a.addEventListener("load",g,!1)):(a.attachEvent("onload",g),b.attachEvent("onreadystatechange",function(){"complete"===b.readyState&&c.readyCallback()})),f=c.source||{},f.concatemoji?e(f.concatemoji):f.wpemoji&&f.twemoji&&(e(f.twemoji),e(f.wpemoji)))}(window,document,window._wpemojiSettings);\n\t\t</script>\n\t\t<style type="text/css">\nimg.wp-smiley,\nimg.emoji {\n\tdisplay: inline !important;\n\tborder: none !important;\n\tbox-shadow: none !important;\n\theight: 1em !important;\n\twidth: 1em !important;\n\tmargin: 0 .07em !important;\n\tvertical-align: -0.1em !important;\n\tbackground: none !important;\n\tpadding: 0 !important;\n}\n</style>\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'contact-form-7-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/includes/css/styles.css?ver=4.9\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'twentyseventeen-fonts-css\'  href=\'https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Libre+Franklin%3A300%2C300i%2C400%2C400i%2C600%2C600i%2C800%2C800i&#038;subset=latin%2Clatin-ext\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'twentyseventeen-style-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/style.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<!--[if lt IE 9]>\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'twentyseventeen-ie8-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/assets/css/ie8.css?ver=1.0\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<![endif]-->\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js?ver=1.12.4\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery-migrate.min.js?ver=1.4.1\'></script>\n<!--[if lt IE 9]>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/assets/js/html5.js?ver=3.7.3\'></script>\n<![endif]-->\n<link rel=\'https://api.w.org/\' href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-json/\' />\n<link rel="EditURI" type="application/rsd+xml" title="RSD" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/xmlrpc.php?rsd" />\n<link rel="wlwmanifest" type="application/wlwmanifest+xml" href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-includes/wlwmanifest.xml" /> \n<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 4.8.2" />\n</head>\n\n<body class="archive category category-court-cases category-7 hfeed has-header-image has-sidebar page-two-column colors-light">\n<div id="page" class="site">\n\t<a class="skip-link screen-reader-text" href="#content">Skip to content</a>\n\n\t<header id="masthead" class="site-header" role="banner">\n\n\t\t<div class="custom-header">\n\n\t\t<div class="custom-header-media">\n\t\t\t<div id="wp-custom-header" class="wp-custom-header"><img src="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-calculator-385506_1920.jpg" width="2000" height="1200" alt="Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law" srcset="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-calculator-385506_1920.jpg 2000w, http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-calculator-385506_1920-300x180.jpg 300w, http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-calculator-385506_1920-768x461.jpg 768w, http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-calculator-385506_1920-1024x614.jpg 1024w" sizes="100vw" /></div>\t\t</div>\n\n\t<div class="site-branding">\n\t<div class="wrap">\n\n\t\t\n\t\t<div class="site-branding-text">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p class="site-title"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/" rel="home">Insurance Litigation and Regulatory Law</a></p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p class="site-description">Learning About Insurance Law</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div><!-- .site-branding-text -->\n\n\t\t\n\t</div><!-- .wrap -->\n</div><!-- .site-branding -->\n\n</div><!-- .custom-header -->\n\n\t\t\n\t</header><!-- #masthead -->\n\n\t\n\t<div class="site-content-contain">\n\t\t<div id="content" class="site-content">\n\n<div class="wrap">\n\n\t\t\t<header class="page-header">\n\t\t\t<h1 class="page-title">Category: Court Cases</h1>\t\t</header><!-- .page-header -->\n\t\n\t<div id="primary" class="content-area">\n\t\t<main id="main" class="site-main" role="main">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n<article id="post-40" class="post-40 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-court-cases">\n\t\t<header class="entry-header">\n\t\t<div class="entry-meta"><span class="screen-reader-text">Posted on</span> <a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/supreme-court-case-united-states-vs-south-eastern-underwriters-association-explained/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2017-06-11T15:00:07+00:00">June 11, 2017</time><time class="updated" datetime="2017-06-07T15:09:48+00:00">June 7, 2017</time></a></div><!-- .entry-meta --><h2 class="entry-title"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/supreme-court-case-united-states-vs-south-eastern-underwriters-association-explained/" rel="bookmark">The Supreme Court Case: United States vs South Eastern Underwriters Association Explained</a></h2>\t</header><!-- .entry-header -->\n\n\t\n\t<div class="entry-content">\n\t\t<div class = \'socialMediaOnEveryPost\'><div id="sgmbShare1-1" class="sgmbShare jssocials-theme-classic sgmbWidget1-1"></div><div class="dropdownWrapper dropdownWrapper1 dropdownWrapper-for-widget " id="dropdownWrapper-for-widget">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class="dropdownLabel" id="dropdownLabel-share-list"><span class="sgmbButtonListLabel1">Share List</span></div>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class="dropdownPanel dropdownPanel1-1">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</div>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t</div><script>  SGMB_URL = "http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/"; jQuery(".dropdownWrapper").hide(); SGMB_GOOGLE_ACOUNT = ""; </script><script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tjQuery(document).ready(function($){var widget = new SGMBWidget();widget.show({"id":"1","title":"Social Media","options":{"currentUrl":"1","url":"","shareText":"","fontSize":"14","betweenButtons":"1px","theme":"classic","sgmbButtonsPosition":"topLeft","socialTheme":"classic","icon":"default","buttonsPanelEffect":"No Effect","buttonsEffect":"No Effect","iconsEffect":"No Effect","buttons":"{\\"facebook\\":{\\"label\\":\\"Share\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-facebook\\"},\\"twitter\\":{\\"label\\":\\"Tweet\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-twitter\\",\\"via\\":\\"\\",\\"hashtags\\":\\"\\"},\\"googleplus\\":{\\"label\\":\\"+1\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-googleplus\\"}}","roundButton":"","showLabels":"on","showCounts":"","showCenter":"","showButtonsAsList":"","sgmbDropdownColor":"","sgmbDropdownLabelFontSize":"14","sgmbDropdownLabelColor":"","showButtonsOnEveryPost":"on","selectedOrExcluded":"","showButtonsOnEveryPage":"","textOnEveryPost":"","showButtonsOnCustomPost":"","textOnCustomPost":"","showButtonsOnMobileDirect":"on","showButtonsOnDesktopDirect":"on","sgmbSelectedPages":[""],"sgmbExcludedPosts":[""],"sgmbSelectedCustomPosts":[],"showButtonsInPopup":"","titleOfPopup":"","descriptionOfPopup":"","showPopupOnLoad":"","showPopupOnScroll":"","showPopupOnExit":"","openSecondsOfPopup":"","googleAnaliticsAccount":""},"buttonOptions":{"facebook":{"label":"Share","icon":"default-facebook"},"twitter":{"label":"Tweet","icon":"default-twitter","via":"","hashtags":""},"googleplus":{"label":"+1","icon":"default-googleplus"}},"button":["facebook","twitter","googleplus"]}, 1, \'\', \'http://insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/business-861325_640-300x225.jpg\', \'\', \'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/supreme-court-case-united-states-vs-south-eastern-underwriters-association-explained/\'); });</script></div><script> jQuery(".socialMediaOnEveryPost").addClass("sgmb-left") </script><p><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/business-861325_640-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" srcset="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/business-861325_640-300x225.jpg 300w, http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/business-861325_640.jpg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._South-Eastern_Underwriters_Ass%27n">The \xc2\xa0Supreme Court case United States vs the South-Eastern Underwriters Association</a> is known because the outcome inspired the\xc2\xa0McCarran-Ferguson Act, which gave Congress the power to help regulate the Insurance industry.</p>\n<p>The case took place in 1942. The Attorney General of Missouri requested the case because the insurance regulators in Missouri felt that they were not able to correct abuses that had been taking place since the 1920s. The Department of Justice investigated the case, and a grand jury then indicted the South-Eastern Underwriters Association, as well as many of their officers and member companies. The defendants were charged with two counts of antitrust violations as well as conspiracy to fix premium rates for fire insurance policies, boycotting independent sales agencies that did not comply. They were also charged with monopolizing markets in several states.</p>\n<p>The district court dismissed the indictment, noting that the business of insurance is not commerce and that while it might be considered trade that is subject to local laws, the commerce clause is not to be relied upon.</p>\n<p>The question that the Court formulated for the case was whether or not the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate insurance companies (from health insurance, to <a href="https://jonathanbowmanlaw.com/practice-areas/">social security and disability insurance</a>, to homeowners and life insurance) doing trade across state lines. The Supreme Court had, for the last 80 years, held the belief that insurance is not a commerce transaction, and this is what the case tested. The case in the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Act was intended to cover monopolization and that the sales of insurance was indeed a form of commerce that Congress could regulate.</p>\n<p>In response to this, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed in 1945, giving formal protection to states to allow them to regulate their own insurance transactions, and limiting the way that insurance could be regulated on a federal level. The act still stands now, although it could be modified to change how health care insurance is treated.</p>\n<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E2tmXJaMBbQ" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>\n\t</div><!-- .entry-content -->\n\n\t\n</article><!-- #post-## -->\n\n<article id="post-31" class="post-31 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-court-cases">\n\t\t<header class="entry-header">\n\t\t<div class="entry-meta"><span class="screen-reader-text">Posted on</span> <a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/summary-paul-v-virginia-1869/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2017-06-05T16:01:02+00:00">June 5, 2017</time><time class="updated" datetime="2017-06-01T16:03:15+00:00">June 1, 2017</time></a></div><!-- .entry-meta --><h2 class="entry-title"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/summary-paul-v-virginia-1869/" rel="bookmark">Summary Of Paul v. Virginia In 1869</a></h2>\t</header><!-- .entry-header -->\n\n\t\n\t<div class="entry-content">\n\t\t<div class = \'socialMediaOnEveryPost\'><div id="sgmbShare1-2" class="sgmbShare jssocials-theme-classic sgmbWidget1-2"></div><div class="dropdownWrapper dropdownWrapper1 dropdownWrapper-for-widget " id="dropdownWrapper-for-widget">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class="dropdownLabel" id="dropdownLabel-share-list"><span class="sgmbButtonListLabel1">Share List</span></div>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class="dropdownPanel dropdownPanel1-2">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</div>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t</div><script>  SGMB_URL = "http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/"; jQuery(".dropdownWrapper").hide(); SGMB_GOOGLE_ACOUNT = ""; </script><script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tjQuery(document).ready(function($){var widget = new SGMBWidget();widget.show({"id":"1","title":"Social Media","options":{"currentUrl":"1","url":"","shareText":"","fontSize":"14","betweenButtons":"1px","theme":"classic","sgmbButtonsPosition":"topLeft","socialTheme":"classic","icon":"default","buttonsPanelEffect":"No Effect","buttonsEffect":"No Effect","iconsEffect":"No Effect","buttons":"{\\"facebook\\":{\\"label\\":\\"Share\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-facebook\\"},\\"twitter\\":{\\"label\\":\\"Tweet\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-twitter\\",\\"via\\":\\"\\",\\"hashtags\\":\\"\\"},\\"googleplus\\":{\\"label\\":\\"+1\\",\\"icon\\":\\"default-googleplus\\"}}","roundButton":"","showLabels":"on","showCounts":"","showCenter":"","showButtonsAsList":"","sgmbDropdownColor":"","sgmbDropdownLabelFontSize":"14","sgmbDropdownLabelColor":"","showButtonsOnEveryPost":"on","selectedOrExcluded":"","showButtonsOnEveryPage":"","textOnEveryPost":"","showButtonsOnCustomPost":"","textOnCustomPost":"","showButtonsOnMobileDirect":"on","showButtonsOnDesktopDirect":"on","sgmbSelectedPages":[""],"sgmbExcludedPosts":[""],"sgmbSelectedCustomPosts":[],"showButtonsInPopup":"","titleOfPopup":"","descriptionOfPopup":"","showPopupOnLoad":"","showPopupOnScroll":"","showPopupOnExit":"","openSecondsOfPopup":"","googleAnaliticsAccount":""},"buttonOptions":{"facebook":{"label":"Share","icon":"default-facebook"},"twitter":{"label":"Tweet","icon":"default-twitter","via":"","hashtags":""},"googleplus":{"label":"+1","icon":"default-googleplus"}},"button":["facebook","twitter","googleplus"]}, 2, \'\', \'http://insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/supreme-court-building-1209701_640-300x200.jpg\', \'\', \'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/summary-paul-v-virginia-1869/\'); });</script></div><script> jQuery(".socialMediaOnEveryPost").addClass("sgmb-left") </script><p><img class="size-medium wp-image-32 alignleft" src="http://insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/supreme-court-building-1209701_640-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" srcset="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/supreme-court-building-1209701_640-300x200.jpg 300w, http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/supreme-court-building-1209701_640.jpg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />In 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could regulate insurance sales and issuance. The deciding factor, according to the Court was that insurance sales were not interstate commerce. This case was brought by the <a href="https://www.allbusiness.com/barrons_dictionary/dictionary-national-board-of-fire-underwriters-4957433-1.html">National Board of Fire Underwriters</a>. The purpose of the case was to challenge the states&#8217; ability to regulate insurance sales.</p>\n<p>In the 19th century, life and fire insurance companies began marketing products nationally. In an effort to encourage local enterprise, states began levying license fees and taxes on insurance companies that were not based in the state. This type of legislation was mostly focused on the large insurance companies headquartered in the Northeast United States.</p>\n<p>Paul v. Virginia became a landmark case for states&#8217; rights. Paul was an insurance agent for several New York state fire insurance companies. He was selling insurance in Virginia and was convicted for selling insurance without a license under Virginia law.</p>\n<p>Paul lived in Virginia and was a resident of the Commonwealth. He was appointed to sell insurance against fire by several New York insurance companies. He applied for a license with the state, but did not deposit bonds with the state treasurer and was refused the license.</p>\n<p>The insurance company lawyers argued that their corporations should be considered citizens and be covered under Article IV and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The ruling by the Supreme Court denied this argument and found that corporations were not citizens as defined by this clause.</p>\n<p>In a later 1944 ruling in United States v. Southeastern Underwriters Association, the court found that insurance was interstate commerce, however by this time state regulatory systems were well-defined. Congress strengthened the states&#8217; positions in 1945 when they authorized the McCarran-Ferguson Act and recognized state insurance regulation.</p>\n<p>This ruling also held that the federal government could regulate insurance transactions under the Commerce Clause. To date, this ruling has not been reversed.</p>\n\t</div><!-- .entry-content -->\n\n\t\n</article><!-- #post-## -->\n\n\t\t</main><!-- #main -->\n\t</div><!-- #primary -->\n\t\n<aside id="secondary" class="widget-area" role="complementary">\n\t\t\t<section id="recent-posts-4" class="widget widget_recent_entries">\t\t<h2 class="widget-title">Recent Posts</h2>\t\t<ul>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/health-insurance-spikes-price/">Health Insurance Spikes in Price</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/texas-insurance-law/">Texas and Insurance Law</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/can-make-health-insurance-reliable/">How Can We Make Health Insurance More Reliable?</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/might-trumpcare-insurance-markets/">WHAT MIGHT TRUMPCARE DO TO INSURANCE MARKETS?</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/texans-holding-harvey-victims-back/">TEXANS HOLDING HARVEY VICTIMS BACK?</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t</ul>\n\t\t</section>\t\t<section id="categories-4" class="widget widget_categories"><h2 class="widget-title">Categories</h2>\t\t<ul>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-2"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/blog/" >Blog</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-7 current-cat"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/court-cases/" >Court Cases</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-10"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/insurance/" >Insurance</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-3"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/insurance-companies/" >Insurance Companies</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-8"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/legislature/" >Legislature</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-4"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/organizations/" >Organizations</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-9"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/programs/" >Programs</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-5"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/terminology/" >Terminology</a>\n</li>\n\t<li class="cat-item cat-item-6"><a href="http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/category/tips/" >Tips</a>\n</li>\n\t\t</ul>\n</section></aside><!-- #secondary -->\n</div><!-- .wrap -->\n\n\n\t\t</div><!-- #content -->\n\n\t\t<footer id="colophon" class="site-footer" role="contentinfo">\n\t\t\t<div class="wrap">\n\t\t\t\t\n<div class="site-info">\n\t<a href="https://wordpress.org/">Proudly powered by WordPress</a>\n</div><!-- .site-info -->\n\t\t\t</div><!-- .wrap -->\n\t\t</footer><!-- #colophon -->\n\t</div><!-- .site-content-contain -->\n</div><!-- #page -->\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'sgmb_socialFont_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/jssocial/font-awesome.min.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'sgmb_social2_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/jssocial/jssocials.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'jssocials_theme_classic-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/jssocial/jssocials-theme-classic.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'sgmb_widget_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/widget/widget-style.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'sgmb_buttons_animate-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/animate.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'sgmb_drop_down_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/css/widget/simple.dropdown.css?ver=4.8.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<script type=\'text/javascript\'>\n/* <![CDATA[ */\nvar wpcf7 = {"apiSettings":{"root":"http:\\/\\/www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com\\/wp-json\\/contact-form-7\\/v1","namespace":"contact-form-7\\/v1"},"recaptcha":{"messages":{"empty":"Please verify that you are not a robot."}},"cached":"1"};\n/* ]]> */\n</script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/includes/js/scripts.js?ver=4.9\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\'>\n/* <![CDATA[ */\nvar twentyseventeenScreenReaderText = {"quote":"<svg class=\\"icon icon-quote-right\\" aria-hidden=\\"true\\" role=\\"img\\"> <use href=\\"#icon-quote-right\\" xlink:href=\\"#icon-quote-right\\"><\\/use> <\\/svg>"};\n/* ]]> */\n</script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/assets/js/skip-link-focus-fix.js?ver=1.0\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/assets/js/global.js?ver=1.0\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/assets/js/jquery.scrollTo.js?ver=2.1.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js?ver=4.8.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/js/addNewSection/SGMB.js\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/js/addNewSection/SGMBWidget.js\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/js/jssocials.js\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/js/jssocials.shares.js\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-builder/js/simple.dropdown.js\'></script>\n<svg style="position: absolute; width: 0; height: 0; overflow: hidden;" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">\n<defs>\n<symbol id="icon-behance" viewBox="0 0 37 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M33 6.054h-9.125v2.214h9.125v-2.214zM28.5 13.661q-1.607 0-2.607 0.938t-1.107 2.545h7.286q-0.321-3.482-3.571-3.482zM28.786 24.107q1.125 0 2.179-0.571t1.357-1.554h3.946q-1.786 5.482-7.625 5.482-3.821 0-6.080-2.357t-2.259-6.196q0-3.714 2.33-6.17t6.009-2.455q2.464 0 4.295 1.214t2.732 3.196 0.902 4.429q0 0.304-0.036 0.839h-11.75q0 1.982 1.027 3.063t2.973 1.080zM4.946 23.214h5.286q3.661 0 3.661-2.982 0-3.214-3.554-3.214h-5.393v6.196zM4.946 13.625h5.018q1.393 0 2.205-0.652t0.813-2.027q0-2.571-3.393-2.571h-4.643v5.25zM0 4.536h10.607q1.554 0 2.768 0.25t2.259 0.848 1.607 1.723 0.563 2.75q0 3.232-3.071 4.696 2.036 0.571 3.071 2.054t1.036 3.643q0 1.339-0.438 2.438t-1.179 1.848-1.759 1.268-2.161 0.75-2.393 0.232h-10.911v-22.5z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-deviantart" viewBox="0 0 18 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M18.286 5.411l-5.411 10.393 0.429 0.554h4.982v7.411h-9.054l-0.786 0.536-2.536 4.875-0.536 0.536h-5.375v-5.411l5.411-10.411-0.429-0.536h-4.982v-7.411h9.054l0.786-0.536 2.536-4.875 0.536-0.536h5.375v5.411z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-medium" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M10.661 7.518v20.946q0 0.446-0.223 0.759t-0.652 0.313q-0.304 0-0.589-0.143l-8.304-4.161q-0.375-0.179-0.634-0.598t-0.259-0.83v-20.357q0-0.357 0.179-0.607t0.518-0.25q0.25 0 0.786 0.268l9.125 4.571q0.054 0.054 0.054 0.089zM11.804 9.321l9.536 15.464-9.536-4.75v-10.714zM32 9.643v18.821q0 0.446-0.25 0.723t-0.679 0.277-0.839-0.232l-7.875-3.929zM31.946 7.5q0 0.054-4.58 7.491t-5.366 8.705l-6.964-11.321 5.786-9.411q0.304-0.5 0.929-0.5 0.25 0 0.464 0.107l9.661 4.821q0.071 0.036 0.071 0.107z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-slideshare" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M15.589 13.214q0 1.482-1.134 2.545t-2.723 1.063-2.723-1.063-1.134-2.545q0-1.5 1.134-2.554t2.723-1.054 2.723 1.054 1.134 2.554zM24.554 13.214q0 1.482-1.125 2.545t-2.732 1.063q-1.589 0-2.723-1.063t-1.134-2.545q0-1.5 1.134-2.554t2.723-1.054q1.607 0 2.732 1.054t1.125 2.554zM28.571 16.429v-11.911q0-1.554-0.571-2.205t-1.982-0.652h-19.857q-1.482 0-2.009 0.607t-0.527 2.25v12.018q0.768 0.411 1.58 0.714t1.446 0.5 1.446 0.33 1.268 0.196 1.25 0.071 1.045 0.009 1.009-0.036 0.795-0.036q1.214-0.018 1.696 0.482 0.107 0.107 0.179 0.161 0.464 0.446 1.089 0.911 0.125-1.625 2.107-1.554 0.089 0 0.652 0.027t0.768 0.036 0.813 0.018 0.946-0.018 0.973-0.080 1.089-0.152 1.107-0.241 1.196-0.348 1.205-0.482 1.286-0.616zM31.482 16.339q-2.161 2.661-6.643 4.5 1.5 5.089-0.411 8.304-1.179 2.018-3.268 2.643-1.857 0.571-3.25-0.268-1.536-0.911-1.464-2.929l-0.018-5.821v-0.018q-0.143-0.036-0.438-0.107t-0.42-0.089l-0.018 6.036q0.071 2.036-1.482 2.929-1.411 0.839-3.268 0.268-2.089-0.643-3.25-2.679-1.875-3.214-0.393-8.268-4.482-1.839-6.643-4.5-0.446-0.661-0.071-1.125t1.071 0.018q0.054 0.036 0.196 0.125t0.196 0.143v-12.393q0-1.286 0.839-2.196t2.036-0.911h22.446q1.196 0 2.036 0.911t0.839 2.196v12.393l0.375-0.268q0.696-0.482 1.071-0.018t-0.071 1.125z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-snapchat-ghost" viewBox="0 0 30 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M15.143 2.286q2.393-0.018 4.295 1.223t2.92 3.438q0.482 1.036 0.482 3.196 0 0.839-0.161 3.411 0.25 0.125 0.5 0.125 0.321 0 0.911-0.241t0.911-0.241q0.518 0 1 0.321t0.482 0.821q0 0.571-0.563 0.964t-1.232 0.563-1.232 0.518-0.563 0.848q0 0.268 0.214 0.768 0.661 1.464 1.83 2.679t2.58 1.804q0.5 0.214 1.429 0.411 0.5 0.107 0.5 0.625 0 1.25-3.911 1.839-0.125 0.196-0.196 0.696t-0.25 0.83-0.589 0.33q-0.357 0-1.107-0.116t-1.143-0.116q-0.661 0-1.107 0.089-0.571 0.089-1.125 0.402t-1.036 0.679-1.036 0.723-1.357 0.598-1.768 0.241q-0.929 0-1.723-0.241t-1.339-0.598-1.027-0.723-1.036-0.679-1.107-0.402q-0.464-0.089-1.125-0.089-0.429 0-1.17 0.134t-1.045 0.134q-0.446 0-0.625-0.33t-0.25-0.848-0.196-0.714q-3.911-0.589-3.911-1.839 0-0.518 0.5-0.625 0.929-0.196 1.429-0.411 1.393-0.571 2.58-1.804t1.83-2.679q0.214-0.5 0.214-0.768 0-0.5-0.563-0.848t-1.241-0.527-1.241-0.563-0.563-0.938q0-0.482 0.464-0.813t0.982-0.33q0.268 0 0.857 0.232t0.946 0.232q0.321 0 0.571-0.125-0.161-2.536-0.161-3.393 0-2.179 0.482-3.214 1.143-2.446 3.071-3.536t4.714-1.125z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-yelp" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M13.804 23.554v2.268q-0.018 5.214-0.107 5.446-0.214 0.571-0.911 0.714-0.964 0.161-3.241-0.679t-2.902-1.589q-0.232-0.268-0.304-0.643-0.018-0.214 0.071-0.464 0.071-0.179 0.607-0.839t3.232-3.857q0.018 0 1.071-1.25 0.268-0.339 0.705-0.438t0.884 0.063q0.429 0.179 0.67 0.518t0.223 0.75zM11.143 19.071q-0.054 0.982-0.929 1.25l-2.143 0.696q-4.911 1.571-5.214 1.571-0.625-0.036-0.964-0.643-0.214-0.446-0.304-1.339-0.143-1.357 0.018-2.973t0.536-2.223 1-0.571q0.232 0 3.607 1.375 1.25 0.518 2.054 0.839l1.5 0.607q0.411 0.161 0.634 0.545t0.205 0.866zM25.893 24.375q-0.125 0.964-1.634 2.875t-2.42 2.268q-0.661 0.25-1.125-0.125-0.25-0.179-3.286-5.125l-0.839-1.375q-0.25-0.375-0.205-0.821t0.348-0.821q0.625-0.768 1.482-0.464 0.018 0.018 2.125 0.714 3.625 1.179 4.321 1.42t0.839 0.366q0.5 0.393 0.393 1.089zM13.893 13.089q0.089 1.821-0.964 2.179-1.036 0.304-2.036-1.268l-6.75-10.679q-0.143-0.625 0.339-1.107 0.732-0.768 3.705-1.598t4.009-0.563q0.714 0.179 0.875 0.804 0.054 0.321 0.393 5.455t0.429 6.777zM25.714 15.018q0.054 0.696-0.464 1.054-0.268 0.179-5.875 1.536-1.196 0.268-1.625 0.411l0.018-0.036q-0.411 0.107-0.821-0.071t-0.661-0.571q-0.536-0.839 0-1.554 0.018-0.018 1.339-1.821 2.232-3.054 2.679-3.643t0.607-0.696q0.5-0.339 1.161-0.036 0.857 0.411 2.196 2.384t1.446 2.991v0.054z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-vine" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M26.732 14.768v3.536q-1.804 0.411-3.536 0.411-1.161 2.429-2.955 4.839t-3.241 3.848-2.286 1.902q-1.429 0.804-2.893-0.054-0.5-0.304-1.080-0.777t-1.518-1.491-1.83-2.295-1.92-3.286-1.884-4.357-1.634-5.616-1.259-6.964h5.054q0.464 3.893 1.25 7.116t1.866 5.661 2.17 4.205 2.5 3.482q3.018-3.018 5.125-7.25-2.536-1.286-3.982-3.929t-1.446-5.946q0-3.429 1.857-5.616t5.071-2.188q3.179 0 4.875 1.884t1.696 5.313q0 2.839-1.036 5.107-0.125 0.018-0.348 0.054t-0.821 0.036-1.125-0.107-1.107-0.455-0.902-0.92q0.554-1.839 0.554-3.286 0-1.554-0.518-2.357t-1.411-0.804q-0.946 0-1.518 0.884t-0.571 2.509q0 3.321 1.875 5.241t4.768 1.92q1.107 0 2.161-0.25z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-vk" viewBox="0 0 35 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M34.232 9.286q0.411 1.143-2.679 5.25-0.429 0.571-1.161 1.518-1.393 1.786-1.607 2.339-0.304 0.732 0.25 1.446 0.304 0.375 1.446 1.464h0.018l0.071 0.071q2.518 2.339 3.411 3.946 0.054 0.089 0.116 0.223t0.125 0.473-0.009 0.607-0.446 0.491-1.054 0.223l-4.571 0.071q-0.429 0.089-1-0.089t-0.929-0.393l-0.357-0.214q-0.536-0.375-1.25-1.143t-1.223-1.384-1.089-1.036-1.009-0.277q-0.054 0.018-0.143 0.063t-0.304 0.259-0.384 0.527-0.304 0.929-0.116 1.384q0 0.268-0.063 0.491t-0.134 0.33l-0.071 0.089q-0.321 0.339-0.946 0.393h-2.054q-1.268 0.071-2.607-0.295t-2.348-0.946-1.839-1.179-1.259-1.027l-0.446-0.429q-0.179-0.179-0.491-0.536t-1.277-1.625-1.893-2.696-2.188-3.768-2.33-4.857q-0.107-0.286-0.107-0.482t0.054-0.286l0.071-0.107q0.268-0.339 1.018-0.339l4.893-0.036q0.214 0.036 0.411 0.116t0.286 0.152l0.089 0.054q0.286 0.196 0.429 0.571 0.357 0.893 0.821 1.848t0.732 1.455l0.286 0.518q0.518 1.071 1 1.857t0.866 1.223 0.741 0.688 0.607 0.25 0.482-0.089q0.036-0.018 0.089-0.089t0.214-0.393 0.241-0.839 0.17-1.446 0-2.232q-0.036-0.714-0.161-1.304t-0.25-0.821l-0.107-0.214q-0.446-0.607-1.518-0.768-0.232-0.036 0.089-0.429 0.304-0.339 0.679-0.536 0.946-0.464 4.268-0.429 1.464 0.018 2.411 0.232 0.357 0.089 0.598 0.241t0.366 0.429 0.188 0.571 0.063 0.813-0.018 0.982-0.045 1.259-0.027 1.473q0 0.196-0.018 0.75t-0.009 0.857 0.063 0.723 0.205 0.696 0.402 0.438q0.143 0.036 0.304 0.071t0.464-0.196 0.679-0.616 0.929-1.196 1.214-1.92q1.071-1.857 1.911-4.018 0.071-0.179 0.179-0.313t0.196-0.188l0.071-0.054 0.089-0.045t0.232-0.054 0.357-0.009l5.143-0.036q0.696-0.089 1.143 0.045t0.554 0.295z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-search" viewBox="0 0 30 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M20.571 14.857q0-3.304-2.348-5.652t-5.652-2.348-5.652 2.348-2.348 5.652 2.348 5.652 5.652 2.348 5.652-2.348 2.348-5.652zM29.714 29.714q0 0.929-0.679 1.607t-1.607 0.679q-0.964 0-1.607-0.679l-6.125-6.107q-3.196 2.214-7.125 2.214-2.554 0-4.884-0.991t-4.018-2.679-2.679-4.018-0.991-4.884 0.991-4.884 2.679-4.018 4.018-2.679 4.884-0.991 4.884 0.991 4.018 2.679 2.679 4.018 0.991 4.884q0 3.929-2.214 7.125l6.125 6.125q0.661 0.661 0.661 1.607z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-envelope-o" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M29.714 26.857v-13.714q-0.571 0.643-1.232 1.179-4.786 3.679-7.607 6.036-0.911 0.768-1.482 1.196t-1.545 0.866-1.83 0.438h-0.036q-0.857 0-1.83-0.438t-1.545-0.866-1.482-1.196q-2.821-2.357-7.607-6.036-0.661-0.536-1.232-1.179v13.714q0 0.232 0.17 0.402t0.402 0.17h26.286q0.232 0 0.402-0.17t0.17-0.402zM29.714 8.089v-0.438t-0.009-0.232-0.054-0.223-0.098-0.161-0.161-0.134-0.25-0.045h-26.286q-0.232 0-0.402 0.17t-0.17 0.402q0 3 2.625 5.071 3.446 2.714 7.161 5.661 0.107 0.089 0.625 0.527t0.821 0.67 0.795 0.563 0.902 0.491 0.768 0.161h0.036q0.357 0 0.768-0.161t0.902-0.491 0.795-0.563 0.821-0.67 0.625-0.527q3.714-2.946 7.161-5.661 0.964-0.768 1.795-2.063t0.83-2.348zM32 7.429v19.429q0 1.179-0.839 2.018t-2.018 0.839h-26.286q-1.179 0-2.018-0.839t-0.839-2.018v-19.429q0-1.179 0.839-2.018t2.018-0.839h26.286q1.179 0 2.018 0.839t0.839 2.018z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-close" viewBox="0 0 25 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M23.179 23.607q0 0.714-0.5 1.214l-2.429 2.429q-0.5 0.5-1.214 0.5t-1.214-0.5l-5.25-5.25-5.25 5.25q-0.5 0.5-1.214 0.5t-1.214-0.5l-2.429-2.429q-0.5-0.5-0.5-1.214t0.5-1.214l5.25-5.25-5.25-5.25q-0.5-0.5-0.5-1.214t0.5-1.214l2.429-2.429q0.5-0.5 1.214-0.5t1.214 0.5l5.25 5.25 5.25-5.25q0.5-0.5 1.214-0.5t1.214 0.5l2.429 2.429q0.5 0.5 0.5 1.214t-0.5 1.214l-5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25q0.5 0.5 0.5 1.214z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-angle-down" viewBox="0 0 21 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M19.196 13.143q0 0.232-0.179 0.411l-8.321 8.321q-0.179 0.179-0.411 0.179t-0.411-0.179l-8.321-8.321q-0.179-0.179-0.179-0.411t0.179-0.411l0.893-0.893q0.179-0.179 0.411-0.179t0.411 0.179l7.018 7.018 7.018-7.018q0.179-0.179 0.411-0.179t0.411 0.179l0.893 0.893q0.179 0.179 0.179 0.411z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-folder-open" viewBox="0 0 34 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M33.554 17q0 0.554-0.554 1.179l-6 7.071q-0.768 0.911-2.152 1.545t-2.563 0.634h-19.429q-0.607 0-1.080-0.232t-0.473-0.768q0-0.554 0.554-1.179l6-7.071q0.768-0.911 2.152-1.545t2.563-0.634h19.429q0.607 0 1.080 0.232t0.473 0.768zM27.429 10.857v2.857h-14.857q-1.679 0-3.518 0.848t-2.929 2.134l-6.107 7.179q0-0.071-0.009-0.223t-0.009-0.223v-17.143q0-1.643 1.179-2.821t2.821-1.179h5.714q1.643 0 2.821 1.179t1.179 2.821v0.571h9.714q1.643 0 2.821 1.179t1.179 2.821z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-twitter" viewBox="0 0 30 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M28.929 7.286q-1.196 1.75-2.893 2.982 0.018 0.25 0.018 0.75 0 2.321-0.679 4.634t-2.063 4.437-3.295 3.759-4.607 2.607-5.768 0.973q-4.839 0-8.857-2.589 0.625 0.071 1.393 0.071 4.018 0 7.161-2.464-1.875-0.036-3.357-1.152t-2.036-2.848q0.589 0.089 1.089 0.089 0.768 0 1.518-0.196-2-0.411-3.313-1.991t-1.313-3.67v-0.071q1.214 0.679 2.607 0.732-1.179-0.786-1.875-2.054t-0.696-2.75q0-1.571 0.786-2.911 2.161 2.661 5.259 4.259t6.634 1.777q-0.143-0.679-0.143-1.321 0-2.393 1.688-4.080t4.080-1.688q2.5 0 4.214 1.821 1.946-0.375 3.661-1.393-0.661 2.054-2.536 3.179 1.661-0.179 3.321-0.893z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-facebook" viewBox="0 0 19 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M17.125 0.214v4.714h-2.804q-1.536 0-2.071 0.643t-0.536 1.929v3.375h5.232l-0.696 5.286h-4.536v13.554h-5.464v-13.554h-4.554v-5.286h4.554v-3.893q0-3.321 1.857-5.152t4.946-1.83q2.625 0 4.071 0.214z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-github" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M13.714 2.286q3.732 0 6.884 1.839t4.991 4.991 1.839 6.884q0 4.482-2.616 8.063t-6.759 4.955q-0.482 0.089-0.714-0.125t-0.232-0.536q0-0.054 0.009-1.366t0.009-2.402q0-1.732-0.929-2.536 1.018-0.107 1.83-0.321t1.679-0.696 1.446-1.188 0.946-1.875 0.366-2.688q0-2.125-1.411-3.679 0.661-1.625-0.143-3.643-0.5-0.161-1.446 0.196t-1.643 0.786l-0.679 0.429q-1.661-0.464-3.429-0.464t-3.429 0.464q-0.286-0.196-0.759-0.482t-1.491-0.688-1.518-0.241q-0.804 2.018-0.143 3.643-1.411 1.554-1.411 3.679 0 1.518 0.366 2.679t0.938 1.875 1.438 1.196 1.679 0.696 1.83 0.321q-0.696 0.643-0.875 1.839-0.375 0.179-0.804 0.268t-1.018 0.089-1.17-0.384-0.991-1.116q-0.339-0.571-0.866-0.929t-0.884-0.429l-0.357-0.054q-0.375 0-0.518 0.080t-0.089 0.205 0.161 0.25 0.232 0.214l0.125 0.089q0.393 0.179 0.777 0.679t0.563 0.911l0.179 0.411q0.232 0.679 0.786 1.098t1.196 0.536 1.241 0.125 0.991-0.063l0.411-0.071q0 0.679 0.009 1.58t0.009 0.973q0 0.321-0.232 0.536t-0.714 0.125q-4.143-1.375-6.759-4.955t-2.616-8.063q0-3.732 1.839-6.884t4.991-4.991 6.884-1.839zM5.196 21.982q0.054-0.125-0.125-0.214-0.179-0.054-0.232 0.036-0.054 0.125 0.125 0.214 0.161 0.107 0.232-0.036zM5.75 22.589q0.125-0.089-0.036-0.286-0.179-0.161-0.286-0.054-0.125 0.089 0.036 0.286 0.179 0.179 0.286 0.054zM6.286 23.393q0.161-0.125 0-0.339-0.143-0.232-0.304-0.107-0.161 0.089 0 0.321t0.304 0.125zM7.036 24.143q0.143-0.143-0.071-0.339-0.214-0.214-0.357-0.054-0.161 0.143 0.071 0.339 0.214 0.214 0.357 0.054zM8.054 24.589q0.054-0.196-0.232-0.286-0.268-0.071-0.339 0.125t0.232 0.268q0.268 0.107 0.339-0.107zM9.179 24.679q0-0.232-0.304-0.196-0.286 0-0.286 0.196 0 0.232 0.304 0.196 0.286 0 0.286-0.196zM10.214 24.5q-0.036-0.196-0.321-0.161-0.286 0.054-0.25 0.268t0.321 0.143 0.25-0.25z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-bars" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M27.429 24v2.286q0 0.464-0.339 0.804t-0.804 0.339h-25.143q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804v-2.286q0-0.464 0.339-0.804t0.804-0.339h25.143q0.464 0 0.804 0.339t0.339 0.804zM27.429 14.857v2.286q0 0.464-0.339 0.804t-0.804 0.339h-25.143q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804v-2.286q0-0.464 0.339-0.804t0.804-0.339h25.143q0.464 0 0.804 0.339t0.339 0.804zM27.429 5.714v2.286q0 0.464-0.339 0.804t-0.804 0.339h-25.143q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804v-2.286q0-0.464 0.339-0.804t0.804-0.339h25.143q0.464 0 0.804 0.339t0.339 0.804z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-google-plus" viewBox="0 0 41 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M25.661 16.304q0 3.714-1.554 6.616t-4.429 4.536-6.589 1.634q-2.661 0-5.089-1.036t-4.179-2.786-2.786-4.179-1.036-5.089 1.036-5.089 2.786-4.179 4.179-2.786 5.089-1.036q5.107 0 8.768 3.429l-3.554 3.411q-2.089-2.018-5.214-2.018-2.196 0-4.063 1.107t-2.955 3.009-1.089 4.152 1.089 4.152 2.955 3.009 4.063 1.107q1.482 0 2.723-0.411t2.045-1.027 1.402-1.402 0.875-1.482 0.384-1.321h-7.429v-4.5h12.357q0.214 1.125 0.214 2.179zM41.143 14.125v3.75h-3.732v3.732h-3.75v-3.732h-3.732v-3.75h3.732v-3.732h3.75v3.732h3.732z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-linkedin" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M6.232 11.161v17.696h-5.893v-17.696h5.893zM6.607 5.696q0.018 1.304-0.902 2.179t-2.42 0.875h-0.036q-1.464 0-2.357-0.875t-0.893-2.179q0-1.321 0.92-2.188t2.402-0.866 2.375 0.866 0.911 2.188zM27.429 18.714v10.143h-5.875v-9.464q0-1.875-0.723-2.938t-2.259-1.063q-1.125 0-1.884 0.616t-1.134 1.527q-0.196 0.536-0.196 1.446v9.875h-5.875q0.036-7.125 0.036-11.554t-0.018-5.286l-0.018-0.857h5.875v2.571h-0.036q0.357-0.571 0.732-1t1.009-0.929 1.554-0.777 2.045-0.277q3.054 0 4.911 2.027t1.857 5.938z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-quote-right" viewBox="0 0 30 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M13.714 5.714v12.571q0 1.857-0.723 3.545t-1.955 2.92-2.92 1.955-3.545 0.723h-1.143q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804v-2.286q0-0.464 0.339-0.804t0.804-0.339h1.143q1.893 0 3.232-1.339t1.339-3.232v-0.571q0-0.714-0.5-1.214t-1.214-0.5h-4q-1.429 0-2.429-1t-1-2.429v-6.857q0-1.429 1-2.429t2.429-1h6.857q1.429 0 2.429 1t1 2.429zM29.714 5.714v12.571q0 1.857-0.723 3.545t-1.955 2.92-2.92 1.955-3.545 0.723h-1.143q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804v-2.286q0-0.464 0.339-0.804t0.804-0.339h1.143q1.893 0 3.232-1.339t1.339-3.232v-0.571q0-0.714-0.5-1.214t-1.214-0.5h-4q-1.429 0-2.429-1t-1-2.429v-6.857q0-1.429 1-2.429t2.429-1h6.857q1.429 0 2.429 1t1 2.429z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-mail-reply" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M32 20q0 2.964-2.268 8.054-0.054 0.125-0.188 0.429t-0.241 0.536-0.232 0.393q-0.214 0.304-0.5 0.304-0.268 0-0.42-0.179t-0.152-0.446q0-0.161 0.045-0.473t0.045-0.42q0.089-1.214 0.089-2.196 0-1.804-0.313-3.232t-0.866-2.473-1.429-1.804-1.884-1.241-2.375-0.759-2.75-0.384-3.134-0.107h-4v4.571q0 0.464-0.339 0.804t-0.804 0.339-0.804-0.339l-9.143-9.143q-0.339-0.339-0.339-0.804t0.339-0.804l9.143-9.143q0.339-0.339 0.804-0.339t0.804 0.339 0.339 0.804v4.571h4q12.732 0 15.625 7.196 0.946 2.393 0.946 5.946z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-youtube" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M17.339 22.214v3.768q0 1.196-0.696 1.196-0.411 0-0.804-0.393v-5.375q0.393-0.393 0.804-0.393 0.696 0 0.696 1.196zM23.375 22.232v0.821h-1.607v-0.821q0-1.214 0.804-1.214t0.804 1.214zM6.125 18.339h1.911v-1.679h-5.571v1.679h1.875v10.161h1.786v-10.161zM11.268 28.5h1.589v-8.821h-1.589v6.75q-0.536 0.75-1.018 0.75-0.321 0-0.375-0.375-0.018-0.054-0.018-0.625v-6.5h-1.589v6.982q0 0.875 0.143 1.304 0.214 0.661 1.036 0.661 0.857 0 1.821-1.089v0.964zM18.929 25.857v-3.518q0-1.304-0.161-1.768-0.304-1-1.268-1-0.893 0-1.661 0.964v-3.875h-1.589v11.839h1.589v-0.857q0.804 0.982 1.661 0.982 0.964 0 1.268-0.982 0.161-0.482 0.161-1.786zM24.964 25.679v-0.232h-1.625q0 0.911-0.036 1.089-0.125 0.643-0.714 0.643-0.821 0-0.821-1.232v-1.554h3.196v-1.839q0-1.411-0.482-2.071-0.696-0.911-1.893-0.911-1.214 0-1.911 0.911-0.5 0.661-0.5 2.071v3.089q0 1.411 0.518 2.071 0.696 0.911 1.929 0.911 1.286 0 1.929-0.946 0.321-0.482 0.375-0.964 0.036-0.161 0.036-1.036zM14.107 9.375v-3.75q0-1.232-0.768-1.232t-0.768 1.232v3.75q0 1.25 0.768 1.25t0.768-1.25zM26.946 22.786q0 4.179-0.464 6.25-0.25 1.054-1.036 1.768t-1.821 0.821q-3.286 0.375-9.911 0.375t-9.911-0.375q-1.036-0.107-1.83-0.821t-1.027-1.768q-0.464-2-0.464-6.25 0-4.179 0.464-6.25 0.25-1.054 1.036-1.768t1.839-0.839q3.268-0.357 9.893-0.357t9.911 0.357q1.036 0.125 1.83 0.839t1.027 1.768q0.464 2 0.464 6.25zM9.125 0h1.821l-2.161 7.125v4.839h-1.786v-4.839q-0.25-1.321-1.089-3.786-0.661-1.839-1.161-3.339h1.893l1.268 4.696zM15.732 5.946v3.125q0 1.446-0.5 2.107-0.661 0.911-1.893 0.911-1.196 0-1.875-0.911-0.5-0.679-0.5-2.107v-3.125q0-1.429 0.5-2.089 0.679-0.911 1.875-0.911 1.232 0 1.893 0.911 0.5 0.661 0.5 2.089zM21.714 3.054v8.911h-1.625v-0.982q-0.946 1.107-1.839 1.107-0.821 0-1.054-0.661-0.143-0.429-0.143-1.339v-7.036h1.625v6.554q0 0.589 0.018 0.625 0.054 0.393 0.375 0.393 0.482 0 1.018-0.768v-6.804h1.625z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-dropbox" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M7.179 12.625l8.821 5.446-6.107 5.089-8.75-5.696zM24.786 22.536v1.929l-8.75 5.232v0.018l-0.018-0.018-0.018 0.018v-0.018l-8.732-5.232v-1.929l2.625 1.714 6.107-5.071v-0.036l0.018 0.018 0.018-0.018v0.036l6.125 5.071zM9.893 2.107l6.107 5.089-8.821 5.429-6.036-4.821zM24.821 12.625l6.036 4.839-8.732 5.696-6.125-5.089zM22.125 2.107l8.732 5.696-6.036 4.821-8.821-5.429z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-instagram" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M18.286 16q0-1.893-1.339-3.232t-3.232-1.339-3.232 1.339-1.339 3.232 1.339 3.232 3.232 1.339 3.232-1.339 1.339-3.232zM20.75 16q0 2.929-2.054 4.982t-4.982 2.054-4.982-2.054-2.054-4.982 2.054-4.982 4.982-2.054 4.982 2.054 2.054 4.982zM22.679 8.679q0 0.679-0.482 1.161t-1.161 0.482-1.161-0.482-0.482-1.161 0.482-1.161 1.161-0.482 1.161 0.482 0.482 1.161zM13.714 4.75q-0.125 0-1.366-0.009t-1.884 0-1.723 0.054-1.839 0.179-1.277 0.33q-0.893 0.357-1.571 1.036t-1.036 1.571q-0.196 0.518-0.33 1.277t-0.179 1.839-0.054 1.723 0 1.884 0.009 1.366-0.009 1.366 0 1.884 0.054 1.723 0.179 1.839 0.33 1.277q0.357 0.893 1.036 1.571t1.571 1.036q0.518 0.196 1.277 0.33t1.839 0.179 1.723 0.054 1.884 0 1.366-0.009 1.366 0.009 1.884 0 1.723-0.054 1.839-0.179 1.277-0.33q0.893-0.357 1.571-1.036t1.036-1.571q0.196-0.518 0.33-1.277t0.179-1.839 0.054-1.723 0-1.884-0.009-1.366 0.009-1.366 0-1.884-0.054-1.723-0.179-1.839-0.33-1.277q-0.357-0.893-1.036-1.571t-1.571-1.036q-0.518-0.196-1.277-0.33t-1.839-0.179-1.723-0.054-1.884 0-1.366 0.009zM27.429 16q0 4.089-0.089 5.661-0.179 3.714-2.214 5.75t-5.75 2.214q-1.571 0.089-5.661 0.089t-5.661-0.089q-3.714-0.179-5.75-2.214t-2.214-5.75q-0.089-1.571-0.089-5.661t0.089-5.661q0.179-3.714 2.214-5.75t5.75-2.214q1.571-0.089 5.661-0.089t5.661 0.089q3.714 0.179 5.75 2.214t2.214 5.75q0.089 1.571 0.089 5.661z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-flickr" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M22.286 2.286q2.125 0 3.634 1.509t1.509 3.634v17.143q0 2.125-1.509 3.634t-3.634 1.509h-17.143q-2.125 0-3.634-1.509t-1.509-3.634v-17.143q0-2.125 1.509-3.634t3.634-1.509h17.143zM12.464 16q0-1.571-1.107-2.679t-2.679-1.107-2.679 1.107-1.107 2.679 1.107 2.679 2.679 1.107 2.679-1.107 1.107-2.679zM22.536 16q0-1.571-1.107-2.679t-2.679-1.107-2.679 1.107-1.107 2.679 1.107 2.679 2.679 1.107 2.679-1.107 1.107-2.679z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-tumblr" viewBox="0 0 19 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M16.857 23.732l1.429 4.232q-0.411 0.625-1.982 1.179t-3.161 0.571q-1.857 0.036-3.402-0.464t-2.545-1.321-1.696-1.893-0.991-2.143-0.295-2.107v-9.714h-3v-3.839q1.286-0.464 2.304-1.241t1.625-1.607 1.036-1.821 0.607-1.768 0.268-1.58q0.018-0.089 0.080-0.152t0.134-0.063h4.357v7.571h5.946v4.5h-5.964v9.25q0 0.536 0.116 1t0.402 0.938 0.884 0.741 1.455 0.25q1.393-0.036 2.393-0.518z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-dribbble" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M18.286 26.786q-0.75-4.304-2.5-8.893h-0.036l-0.036 0.018q-0.286 0.107-0.768 0.295t-1.804 0.875-2.446 1.464-2.339 2.045-1.839 2.643l-0.268-0.196q3.286 2.679 7.464 2.679 2.357 0 4.571-0.929zM14.982 15.946q-0.375-0.875-0.946-1.982-5.554 1.661-12.018 1.661-0.018 0.125-0.018 0.375 0 2.214 0.786 4.223t2.214 3.598q0.893-1.589 2.205-2.973t2.545-2.223 2.33-1.446 1.777-0.857l0.661-0.232q0.071-0.018 0.232-0.063t0.232-0.080zM13.071 12.161q-2.143-3.804-4.357-6.75-2.464 1.161-4.179 3.321t-2.286 4.857q5.393 0 10.821-1.429zM25.286 17.857q-3.75-1.071-7.304-0.518 1.554 4.268 2.286 8.375 1.982-1.339 3.304-3.384t1.714-4.473zM10.911 4.625q-0.018 0-0.036 0.018 0.018-0.018 0.036-0.018zM21.446 7.214q-3.304-2.929-7.732-2.929-1.357 0-2.768 0.339 2.339 3.036 4.393 6.821 1.232-0.464 2.321-1.080t1.723-1.098 1.17-1.018 0.67-0.723zM25.429 15.875q-0.054-4.143-2.661-7.321l-0.018 0.018q-0.161 0.214-0.339 0.438t-0.777 0.795-1.268 1.080-1.786 1.161-2.348 1.152q0.446 0.946 0.786 1.696 0.036 0.107 0.116 0.313t0.134 0.295q0.643-0.089 1.33-0.125t1.313-0.036 1.232 0.027 1.143 0.071 1.009 0.098 0.857 0.116 0.652 0.107 0.446 0.080zM27.429 16q0 3.732-1.839 6.884t-4.991 4.991-6.884 1.839-6.884-1.839-4.991-4.991-1.839-6.884 1.839-6.884 4.991-4.991 6.884-1.839 6.884 1.839 4.991 4.991 1.839 6.884z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-skype" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M20.946 18.982q0-0.893-0.348-1.634t-0.866-1.223-1.304-0.875-1.473-0.607-1.563-0.411l-1.857-0.429q-0.536-0.125-0.786-0.188t-0.625-0.205-0.536-0.286-0.295-0.375-0.134-0.536q0-1.375 2.571-1.375 0.768 0 1.375 0.214t0.964 0.509 0.679 0.598 0.714 0.518 0.857 0.214q0.839 0 1.348-0.571t0.509-1.375q0-0.982-1-1.777t-2.536-1.205-3.25-0.411q-1.214 0-2.357 0.277t-2.134 0.839-1.589 1.554-0.598 2.295q0 1.089 0.339 1.902t1 1.348 1.429 0.866 1.839 0.58l2.607 0.643q1.607 0.393 2 0.643 0.571 0.357 0.571 1.071 0 0.696-0.714 1.152t-1.875 0.455q-0.911 0-1.634-0.286t-1.161-0.688-0.813-0.804-0.821-0.688-0.964-0.286q-0.893 0-1.348 0.536t-0.455 1.339q0 1.643 2.179 2.813t5.196 1.17q1.304 0 2.5-0.33t2.188-0.955 1.58-1.67 0.589-2.348zM27.429 22.857q0 2.839-2.009 4.848t-4.848 2.009q-2.321 0-4.179-1.429-1.375 0.286-2.679 0.286-2.554 0-4.884-0.991t-4.018-2.679-2.679-4.018-0.991-4.884q0-1.304 0.286-2.679-1.429-1.857-1.429-4.179 0-2.839 2.009-4.848t4.848-2.009q2.321 0 4.179 1.429 1.375-0.286 2.679-0.286 2.554 0 4.884 0.991t4.018 2.679 2.679 4.018 0.991 4.884q0 1.304-0.286 2.679 1.429 1.857 1.429 4.179z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-foursquare" viewBox="0 0 23 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M17.857 7.75l0.661-3.464q0.089-0.411-0.161-0.714t-0.625-0.304h-12.714q-0.411 0-0.688 0.304t-0.277 0.661v19.661q0 0.125 0.107 0.018l5.196-6.286q0.411-0.464 0.679-0.598t0.857-0.134h4.268q0.393 0 0.661-0.259t0.321-0.527q0.429-2.321 0.661-3.411 0.071-0.375-0.205-0.714t-0.652-0.339h-5.25q-0.518 0-0.857-0.339t-0.339-0.857v-0.75q0-0.518 0.339-0.848t0.857-0.33h6.179q0.321 0 0.625-0.241t0.357-0.527zM21.911 3.786q-0.268 1.304-0.955 4.759t-1.241 6.25-0.625 3.098q-0.107 0.393-0.161 0.58t-0.25 0.58-0.438 0.589-0.688 0.375-1.036 0.179h-4.839q-0.232 0-0.393 0.179-0.143 0.161-7.607 8.821-0.393 0.446-1.045 0.509t-0.866-0.098q-0.982-0.393-0.982-1.75v-25.179q0-0.982 0.679-1.83t2.143-0.848h15.857q1.696 0 2.268 0.946t0.179 2.839zM21.911 3.786l-2.821 14.107q0.071-0.304 0.625-3.098t1.241-6.25 0.955-4.759z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-wordpress" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M2.268 16q0-2.911 1.196-5.589l6.554 17.946q-3.5-1.696-5.625-5.018t-2.125-7.339zM25.268 15.304q0 0.339-0.045 0.688t-0.179 0.884-0.205 0.786-0.313 1.054-0.313 1.036l-1.357 4.571-4.964-14.75q0.821-0.054 1.571-0.143 0.339-0.036 0.464-0.33t-0.045-0.554-0.509-0.241l-3.661 0.179q-1.339-0.018-3.607-0.179-0.214-0.018-0.366 0.089t-0.205 0.268-0.027 0.33 0.161 0.295 0.348 0.143l1.429 0.143 2.143 5.857-3 9-5-14.857q0.821-0.054 1.571-0.143 0.339-0.036 0.464-0.33t-0.045-0.554-0.509-0.241l-3.661 0.179q-0.125 0-0.411-0.009t-0.464-0.009q1.875-2.857 4.902-4.527t6.563-1.67q2.625 0 5.009 0.946t4.259 2.661h-0.179q-0.982 0-1.643 0.723t-0.661 1.705q0 0.214 0.036 0.429t0.071 0.384 0.143 0.411 0.161 0.375 0.214 0.402 0.223 0.375 0.259 0.429 0.25 0.411q1.125 1.911 1.125 3.786zM16.232 17.196l4.232 11.554q0.018 0.107 0.089 0.196-2.25 0.786-4.554 0.786-2 0-3.875-0.571zM28.036 9.411q1.696 3.107 1.696 6.589 0 3.732-1.857 6.884t-4.982 4.973l4.196-12.107q1.054-3.018 1.054-4.929 0-0.75-0.107-1.411zM16 0q3.25 0 6.214 1.268t5.107 3.411 3.411 5.107 1.268 6.214-1.268 6.214-3.411 5.107-5.107 3.411-6.214 1.268-6.214-1.268-5.107-3.411-3.411-5.107-1.268-6.214 1.268-6.214 3.411-5.107 5.107-3.411 6.214-1.268zM16 31.268q3.089 0 5.92-1.214t4.875-3.259 3.259-4.875 1.214-5.92-1.214-5.92-3.259-4.875-4.875-3.259-5.92-1.214-5.92 1.214-4.875 3.259-3.259 4.875-1.214 5.92 1.214 5.92 3.259 4.875 4.875 3.259 5.92 1.214z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-stumbleupon" viewBox="0 0 34 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M18.964 12.714v-2.107q0-0.75-0.536-1.286t-1.286-0.536-1.286 0.536-0.536 1.286v10.929q0 3.125-2.25 5.339t-5.411 2.214q-3.179 0-5.42-2.241t-2.241-5.42v-4.75h5.857v4.679q0 0.768 0.536 1.295t1.286 0.527 1.286-0.527 0.536-1.295v-11.071q0-3.054 2.259-5.214t5.384-2.161q3.143 0 5.393 2.179t2.25 5.25v2.429l-3.482 1.036zM28.429 16.679h5.857v4.75q0 3.179-2.241 5.42t-5.42 2.241q-3.161 0-5.411-2.223t-2.25-5.366v-4.786l2.339 1.089 3.482-1.036v4.821q0 0.75 0.536 1.277t1.286 0.527 1.286-0.527 0.536-1.277v-4.911z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-digg" viewBox="0 0 37 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M5.857 5.036h3.643v17.554h-9.5v-12.446h5.857v-5.107zM5.857 19.661v-6.589h-2.196v6.589h2.196zM10.964 10.143v12.446h3.661v-12.446h-3.661zM10.964 5.036v3.643h3.661v-3.643h-3.661zM16.089 10.143h9.518v16.821h-9.518v-2.911h5.857v-1.464h-5.857v-12.446zM21.946 19.661v-6.589h-2.196v6.589h2.196zM27.071 10.143h9.5v16.821h-9.5v-2.911h5.839v-1.464h-5.839v-12.446zM32.911 19.661v-6.589h-2.196v6.589h2.196z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-spotify" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M20.125 21.607q0-0.571-0.536-0.911-3.446-2.054-7.982-2.054-2.375 0-5.125 0.607-0.75 0.161-0.75 0.929 0 0.357 0.241 0.616t0.634 0.259q0.089 0 0.661-0.143 2.357-0.482 4.339-0.482 4.036 0 7.089 1.839 0.339 0.196 0.589 0.196 0.339 0 0.589-0.241t0.25-0.616zM21.839 17.768q0-0.714-0.625-1.089-4.232-2.518-9.786-2.518-2.732 0-5.411 0.75-0.857 0.232-0.857 1.143 0 0.446 0.313 0.759t0.759 0.313q0.125 0 0.661-0.143 2.179-0.589 4.482-0.589 4.982 0 8.714 2.214 0.429 0.232 0.679 0.232 0.446 0 0.759-0.313t0.313-0.759zM23.768 13.339q0-0.839-0.714-1.25-2.25-1.304-5.232-1.973t-6.125-0.67q-3.643 0-6.5 0.839-0.411 0.125-0.688 0.455t-0.277 0.866q0 0.554 0.366 0.929t0.92 0.375q0.196 0 0.714-0.143 2.375-0.661 5.482-0.661 2.839 0 5.527 0.607t4.527 1.696q0.375 0.214 0.714 0.214 0.518 0 0.902-0.366t0.384-0.92zM27.429 16q0 3.732-1.839 6.884t-4.991 4.991-6.884 1.839-6.884-1.839-4.991-4.991-1.839-6.884 1.839-6.884 4.991-4.991 6.884-1.839 6.884 1.839 4.991 4.991 1.839 6.884z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-soundcloud" viewBox="0 0 41 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M14 24.5l0.286-4.304-0.286-9.339q-0.018-0.179-0.134-0.304t-0.295-0.125q-0.161 0-0.286 0.125t-0.125 0.304l-0.25 9.339 0.25 4.304q0.018 0.179 0.134 0.295t0.277 0.116q0.393 0 0.429-0.411zM19.286 23.982l0.196-3.768-0.214-10.464q0-0.286-0.232-0.429-0.143-0.089-0.286-0.089t-0.286 0.089q-0.232 0.143-0.232 0.429l-0.018 0.107-0.179 10.339q0 0.018 0.196 4.214v0.018q0 0.179 0.107 0.304 0.161 0.196 0.411 0.196 0.196 0 0.357-0.161 0.161-0.125 0.161-0.357zM0.625 17.911l0.357 2.286-0.357 2.25q-0.036 0.161-0.161 0.161t-0.161-0.161l-0.304-2.25 0.304-2.286q0.036-0.161 0.161-0.161t0.161 0.161zM2.161 16.5l0.464 3.696-0.464 3.625q-0.036 0.161-0.179 0.161-0.161 0-0.161-0.179l-0.411-3.607 0.411-3.696q0-0.161 0.161-0.161 0.143 0 0.179 0.161zM3.804 15.821l0.446 4.375-0.446 4.232q0 0.196-0.196 0.196-0.179 0-0.214-0.196l-0.375-4.232 0.375-4.375q0.036-0.214 0.214-0.214 0.196 0 0.196 0.214zM5.482 15.696l0.411 4.5-0.411 4.357q-0.036 0.232-0.25 0.232-0.232 0-0.232-0.232l-0.375-4.357 0.375-4.5q0-0.232 0.232-0.232 0.214 0 0.25 0.232zM7.161 16.018l0.375 4.179-0.375 4.393q-0.036 0.286-0.286 0.286-0.107 0-0.188-0.080t-0.080-0.205l-0.357-4.393 0.357-4.179q0-0.107 0.080-0.188t0.188-0.080q0.25 0 0.286 0.268zM8.839 13.411l0.375 6.786-0.375 4.393q0 0.125-0.089 0.223t-0.214 0.098q-0.286 0-0.321-0.321l-0.321-4.393 0.321-6.786q0.036-0.321 0.321-0.321 0.125 0 0.214 0.098t0.089 0.223zM10.518 11.875l0.339 8.357-0.339 4.357q0 0.143-0.098 0.241t-0.241 0.098q-0.321 0-0.357-0.339l-0.286-4.357 0.286-8.357q0.036-0.339 0.357-0.339 0.143 0 0.241 0.098t0.098 0.241zM12.268 11.161l0.321 9.036-0.321 4.321q-0.036 0.375-0.393 0.375-0.339 0-0.375-0.375l-0.286-4.321 0.286-9.036q0-0.161 0.116-0.277t0.259-0.116q0.161 0 0.268 0.116t0.125 0.277zM19.268 24.411v0 0zM15.732 11.089l0.268 9.107-0.268 4.268q0 0.179-0.134 0.313t-0.313 0.134-0.304-0.125-0.143-0.321l-0.25-4.268 0.25-9.107q0-0.196 0.134-0.321t0.313-0.125 0.313 0.125 0.134 0.321zM17.5 11.429l0.25 8.786-0.25 4.214q0 0.196-0.143 0.339t-0.339 0.143-0.339-0.143-0.161-0.339l-0.214-4.214 0.214-8.786q0.018-0.214 0.161-0.357t0.339-0.143 0.33 0.143 0.152 0.357zM21.286 20.214l-0.25 4.125q0 0.232-0.161 0.393t-0.393 0.161-0.393-0.161-0.179-0.393l-0.107-2.036-0.107-2.089 0.214-11.357v-0.054q0.036-0.268 0.214-0.429 0.161-0.125 0.357-0.125 0.143 0 0.268 0.089 0.25 0.143 0.286 0.464zM41.143 19.875q0 2.089-1.482 3.563t-3.571 1.473h-14.036q-0.232-0.036-0.393-0.196t-0.161-0.393v-16.054q0-0.411 0.5-0.589 1.518-0.607 3.232-0.607 3.482 0 6.036 2.348t2.857 5.777q0.946-0.393 1.964-0.393 2.089 0 3.571 1.482t1.482 3.589z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-codepen" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M3.857 20.875l10.768 7.179v-6.411l-5.964-3.982zM2.75 18.304l3.446-2.304-3.446-2.304v4.607zM17.375 28.054l10.768-7.179-4.804-3.214-5.964 3.982v6.411zM16 19.25l4.857-3.25-4.857-3.25-4.857 3.25zM8.661 14.339l5.964-3.982v-6.411l-10.768 7.179zM25.804 16l3.446 2.304v-4.607zM23.339 14.339l4.804-3.214-10.768-7.179v6.411zM32 11.125v9.75q0 0.732-0.607 1.143l-14.625 9.75q-0.375 0.232-0.768 0.232t-0.768-0.232l-14.625-9.75q-0.607-0.411-0.607-1.143v-9.75q0-0.732 0.607-1.143l14.625-9.75q0.375-0.232 0.768-0.232t0.768 0.232l14.625 9.75q0.607 0.411 0.607 1.143z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-twitch" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M16 7.75v7.75h-2.589v-7.75h2.589zM23.107 7.75v7.75h-2.589v-7.75h2.589zM23.107 21.321l4.518-4.536v-14.196h-21.321v18.732h5.821v3.875l3.875-3.875h7.107zM30.214 0v18.089l-7.75 7.75h-5.821l-3.875 3.875h-3.875v-3.875h-7.107v-20.679l1.946-5.161h26.482z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-meanpath" viewBox="0 0 27 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M23.411 15.036v2.036q0 0.429-0.241 0.679t-0.67 0.25h-3.607q-0.429 0-0.679-0.25t-0.25-0.679v-2.036q0-0.429 0.25-0.679t0.679-0.25h3.607q0.429 0 0.67 0.25t0.241 0.679zM14.661 19.143v-4.464q0-0.946-0.58-1.527t-1.527-0.58h-2.375q-1.214 0-1.714 0.929-0.5-0.929-1.714-0.929h-2.321q-0.946 0-1.527 0.58t-0.58 1.527v4.464q0 0.393 0.375 0.393h0.982q0.393 0 0.393-0.393v-4.107q0-0.429 0.241-0.679t0.688-0.25h1.679q0.429 0 0.679 0.25t0.25 0.679v4.107q0 0.393 0.375 0.393h0.964q0.393 0 0.393-0.393v-4.107q0-0.429 0.25-0.679t0.679-0.25h1.732q0.429 0 0.67 0.25t0.241 0.679v4.107q0 0.393 0.393 0.393h0.982q0.375 0 0.375-0.393zM25.179 17.429v-2.75q0-0.946-0.589-1.527t-1.536-0.58h-4.714q-0.946 0-1.536 0.58t-0.589 1.527v7.321q0 0.375 0.393 0.375h0.982q0.375 0 0.375-0.375v-3.214q0.554 0.75 1.679 0.75h3.411q0.946 0 1.536-0.58t0.589-1.527zM27.429 6.429v19.143q0 1.714-1.214 2.929t-2.929 1.214h-19.143q-1.714 0-2.929-1.214t-1.214-2.929v-19.143q0-1.714 1.214-2.929t2.929-1.214h19.143q1.714 0 2.929 1.214t1.214 2.929z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-pinterest-p" viewBox="0 0 23 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M0 10.661q0-1.929 0.67-3.634t1.848-2.973 2.714-2.196 3.304-1.393 3.607-0.464q2.821 0 5.25 1.188t3.946 3.455 1.518 5.125q0 1.714-0.339 3.357t-1.071 3.161-1.786 2.67-2.589 1.839-3.375 0.688q-1.214 0-2.411-0.571t-1.714-1.571q-0.179 0.696-0.5 2.009t-0.42 1.696-0.366 1.268-0.464 1.268-0.571 1.116-0.821 1.384-1.107 1.545l-0.25 0.089-0.161-0.179q-0.268-2.804-0.268-3.357 0-1.643 0.384-3.688t1.188-5.134 0.929-3.625q-0.571-1.161-0.571-3.018 0-1.482 0.929-2.786t2.357-1.304q1.089 0 1.696 0.723t0.607 1.83q0 1.179-0.786 3.411t-0.786 3.339q0 1.125 0.804 1.866t1.946 0.741q0.982 0 1.821-0.446t1.402-1.214 1-1.696 0.679-1.973 0.357-1.982 0.116-1.777q0-3.089-1.955-4.813t-5.098-1.723q-3.571 0-5.964 2.313t-2.393 5.866q0 0.786 0.223 1.518t0.482 1.161 0.482 0.813 0.223 0.545q0 0.5-0.268 1.304t-0.661 0.804q-0.036 0-0.304-0.054-0.911-0.268-1.616-1t-1.089-1.688-0.58-1.929-0.196-1.902z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-get-pocket" viewBox="0 0 31 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M27.946 2.286q1.161 0 1.964 0.813t0.804 1.973v9.268q0 3.143-1.214 6t-3.259 4.911-4.893 3.259-5.973 1.205q-3.143 0-5.991-1.205t-4.902-3.259-3.268-4.911-1.214-6v-9.268q0-1.143 0.821-1.964t1.964-0.821h25.161zM15.375 21.286q0.839 0 1.464-0.589l7.214-6.929q0.661-0.625 0.661-1.518 0-0.875-0.616-1.491t-1.491-0.616q-0.839 0-1.464 0.589l-5.768 5.536-5.768-5.536q-0.625-0.589-1.446-0.589-0.875 0-1.491 0.616t-0.616 1.491q0 0.911 0.643 1.518l7.232 6.929q0.589 0.589 1.446 0.589z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-vimeo" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M30.518 9.25q-0.179 4.214-5.929 11.625-5.946 7.696-10.036 7.696-2.536 0-4.286-4.696-0.786-2.857-2.357-8.607-1.286-4.679-2.804-4.679-0.321 0-2.268 1.357l-1.375-1.75q0.429-0.375 1.929-1.723t2.321-2.063q2.786-2.464 4.304-2.607 1.696-0.161 2.732 0.991t1.446 3.634q0.786 5.125 1.179 6.661 0.982 4.446 2.143 4.446 0.911 0 2.75-2.875 1.804-2.875 1.946-4.393 0.232-2.482-1.946-2.482-1.018 0-2.161 0.464 2.143-7.018 8.196-6.821 4.482 0.143 4.214 5.821z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-reddit-alien" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M32 15.107q0 1.036-0.527 1.884t-1.42 1.295q0.214 0.821 0.214 1.714 0 2.768-1.902 5.125t-5.188 3.723-7.143 1.366-7.134-1.366-5.179-3.723-1.902-5.125q0-0.839 0.196-1.679-0.911-0.446-1.464-1.313t-0.554-1.902q0-1.464 1.036-2.509t2.518-1.045q1.518 0 2.589 1.125 3.893-2.714 9.196-2.893l2.071-9.304q0.054-0.232 0.268-0.375t0.464-0.089l6.589 1.446q0.321-0.661 0.964-1.063t1.411-0.402q1.107 0 1.893 0.777t0.786 1.884-0.786 1.893-1.893 0.786-1.884-0.777-0.777-1.884l-5.964-1.321-1.857 8.429q5.357 0.161 9.268 2.857 1.036-1.089 2.554-1.089 1.482 0 2.518 1.045t1.036 2.509zM7.464 18.661q0 1.107 0.777 1.893t1.884 0.786 1.893-0.786 0.786-1.893-0.786-1.884-1.893-0.777q-1.089 0-1.875 0.786t-0.786 1.875zM21.929 25q0.196-0.196 0.196-0.464t-0.196-0.464q-0.179-0.179-0.446-0.179t-0.464 0.179q-0.732 0.75-2.161 1.107t-2.857 0.357-2.857-0.357-2.161-1.107q-0.196-0.179-0.464-0.179t-0.446 0.179q-0.196 0.179-0.196 0.455t0.196 0.473q0.768 0.768 2.116 1.214t2.188 0.527 1.625 0.080 1.625-0.080 2.188-0.527 2.116-1.214zM21.875 21.339q1.107 0 1.884-0.786t0.777-1.893q0-1.089-0.786-1.875t-1.875-0.786q-1.107 0-1.893 0.777t-0.786 1.884 0.786 1.893 1.893 0.786z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-hashtag" viewBox="0 0 32 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M17.696 18.286l1.143-4.571h-4.536l-1.143 4.571h4.536zM31.411 9.286l-1 4q-0.125 0.429-0.554 0.429h-5.839l-1.143 4.571h5.554q0.268 0 0.446 0.214 0.179 0.25 0.107 0.5l-1 4q-0.089 0.429-0.554 0.429h-5.839l-1.446 5.857q-0.125 0.429-0.554 0.429h-4q-0.286 0-0.464-0.214-0.161-0.214-0.107-0.5l1.393-5.571h-4.536l-1.446 5.857q-0.125 0.429-0.554 0.429h-4.018q-0.268 0-0.446-0.214-0.161-0.214-0.107-0.5l1.393-5.571h-5.554q-0.268 0-0.446-0.214-0.161-0.214-0.107-0.5l1-4q0.125-0.429 0.554-0.429h5.839l1.143-4.571h-5.554q-0.268 0-0.446-0.214-0.179-0.25-0.107-0.5l1-4q0.089-0.429 0.554-0.429h5.839l1.446-5.857q0.125-0.429 0.571-0.429h4q0.268 0 0.446 0.214 0.161 0.214 0.107 0.5l-1.393 5.571h4.536l1.446-5.857q0.125-0.429 0.571-0.429h4q0.268 0 0.446 0.214 0.161 0.214 0.107 0.5l-1.393 5.571h5.554q0.268 0 0.446 0.214 0.161 0.214 0.107 0.5z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-chain" viewBox="0 0 30 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M26 21.714q0-0.714-0.5-1.214l-3.714-3.714q-0.5-0.5-1.214-0.5-0.75 0-1.286 0.571 0.054 0.054 0.339 0.33t0.384 0.384 0.268 0.339 0.232 0.455 0.063 0.491q0 0.714-0.5 1.214t-1.214 0.5q-0.268 0-0.491-0.063t-0.455-0.232-0.339-0.268-0.384-0.384-0.33-0.339q-0.589 0.554-0.589 1.304 0 0.714 0.5 1.214l3.679 3.696q0.482 0.482 1.214 0.482 0.714 0 1.214-0.464l2.625-2.607q0.5-0.5 0.5-1.196zM13.446 9.125q0-0.714-0.5-1.214l-3.679-3.696q-0.5-0.5-1.214-0.5-0.696 0-1.214 0.482l-2.625 2.607q-0.5 0.5-0.5 1.196 0 0.714 0.5 1.214l3.714 3.714q0.482 0.482 1.214 0.482 0.75 0 1.286-0.554-0.054-0.054-0.339-0.33t-0.384-0.384-0.268-0.339-0.232-0.455-0.063-0.491q0-0.714 0.5-1.214t1.214-0.5q0.268 0 0.491 0.063t0.455 0.232 0.339 0.268 0.384 0.384 0.33 0.339q0.589-0.554 0.589-1.304zM29.429 21.714q0 2.143-1.518 3.625l-2.625 2.607q-1.482 1.482-3.625 1.482-2.161 0-3.643-1.518l-3.679-3.696q-1.482-1.482-1.482-3.625 0-2.196 1.571-3.732l-1.571-1.571q-1.536 1.571-3.714 1.571-2.143 0-3.643-1.5l-3.714-3.714q-1.5-1.5-1.5-3.643t1.518-3.625l2.625-2.607q1.482-1.482 3.625-1.482 2.161 0 3.643 1.518l3.679 3.696q1.482 1.482 1.482 3.625 0 2.196-1.571 3.732l1.571 1.571q1.536-1.571 3.714-1.571 2.143 0 3.643 1.5l3.714 3.714q1.5 1.5 1.5 3.643z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-thumb-tack" viewBox="0 0 21 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M8.571 15.429v-8q0-0.25-0.161-0.411t-0.411-0.161-0.411 0.161-0.161 0.411v8q0 0.25 0.161 0.411t0.411 0.161 0.411-0.161 0.161-0.411zM20.571 21.714q0 0.464-0.339 0.804t-0.804 0.339h-7.661l-0.911 8.625q-0.036 0.214-0.188 0.366t-0.366 0.152h-0.018q-0.482 0-0.571-0.482l-1.357-8.661h-7.214q-0.464 0-0.804-0.339t-0.339-0.804q0-2.196 1.402-3.955t3.17-1.759v-9.143q-0.929 0-1.607-0.679t-0.679-1.607 0.679-1.607 1.607-0.679h11.429q0.929 0 1.607 0.679t0.679 1.607-0.679 1.607-1.607 0.679v9.143q1.768 0 3.17 1.759t1.402 3.955z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-arrow-left" viewBox="0 0 43 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M42.311 14.044c-0.178-0.178-0.533-0.356-0.711-0.356h-33.778l10.311-10.489c0.178-0.178 0.356-0.533 0.356-0.711 0-0.356-0.178-0.533-0.356-0.711l-1.6-1.422c-0.356-0.178-0.533-0.356-0.889-0.356s-0.533 0.178-0.711 0.356l-14.578 14.933c-0.178 0.178-0.356 0.533-0.356 0.711s0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711l14.756 14.933c0 0.178 0.356 0.356 0.533 0.356s0.533-0.178 0.711-0.356l1.6-1.6c0.178-0.178 0.356-0.533 0.356-0.711s-0.178-0.533-0.356-0.711l-10.311-10.489h33.778c0.178 0 0.533-0.178 0.711-0.356 0.356-0.178 0.533-0.356 0.533-0.711v-2.133c0-0.356-0.178-0.711-0.356-0.889z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-arrow-right" viewBox="0 0 43 32">\n<path class="path1" d="M0.356 17.956c0.178 0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711 0.356h33.778l-10.311 10.489c-0.178 0.178-0.356 0.533-0.356 0.711 0 0.356 0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711l1.6 1.6c0.178 0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711 0.356s0.533-0.178 0.711-0.356l14.756-14.933c0.178-0.356 0.356-0.711 0.356-0.889s-0.178-0.533-0.356-0.711l-14.756-14.933c0-0.178-0.356-0.356-0.533-0.356s-0.533 0.178-0.711 0.356l-1.6 1.6c-0.178 0.178-0.356 0.533-0.356 0.711s0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711l10.311 10.489h-33.778c-0.178 0-0.533 0.178-0.711 0.356-0.356 0.178-0.533 0.356-0.533 0.711v2.311c0 0.178 0.178 0.533 0.356 0.711z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-play" viewBox="0 0 22 28">\n<path d="M21.625 14.484l-20.75 11.531c-0.484 0.266-0.875 0.031-0.875-0.516v-23c0-0.547 0.391-0.781 0.875-0.516l20.75 11.531c0.484 0.266 0.484 0.703 0 0.969z"></path>\n</symbol>\n<symbol id="icon-pause" viewBox="0 0 24 28">\n<path d="M24 3v22c0 0.547-0.453 1-1 1h-8c-0.547 0-1-0.453-1-1v-22c0-0.547 0.453-1 1-1h8c0.547 0 1 0.453 1 1zM10 3v22c0 0.547-0.453 1-1 1h-8c-0.547 0-1-0.453-1-1v-22c0-0.547 0.453-1 1-1h8c0.547 0 1 0.453 1 1z"></path>\n</symbol>\n</defs>\n</svg>\n\n</body>\n</html>\n'
In [96]:
p_2 = urllib.request.build_opener(urllib.request.HTTPCookieProcessor).open(url_2).read()
print(p_2)
b'<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">\n<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en-US" xmlns:fb="http://ogp.me/ns/fb#" xmlns:addthis="http://www.addthis.com/help/api-spec" >\n<head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">\n\t<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />\n\t<title>Insurance Coverage Law Blog</title>\n\t<link rel="pingback" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/xmlrpc.php" />\n\t<link rel=\'dns-prefetch\' href=\'//s.w.org\' />\n<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Insurance Coverage Law Blog &raquo; Feed" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/feed/" />\n<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Insurance Coverage Law Blog &raquo; Comments Feed" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/comments/feed/" />\n\t\t<script type="text/javascript">\n\t\t\twindow._wpemojiSettings = {"baseUrl":"https:\\/\\/s.w.org\\/images\\/core\\/emoji\\/2.2.1\\/72x72\\/","ext":".png","svgUrl":"https:\\/\\/s.w.org\\/images\\/core\\/emoji\\/2.2.1\\/svg\\/","svgExt":".svg","source":{"concatemoji":"http:\\/\\/www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com\\/wp-includes\\/js\\/wp-emoji-release.min.js?ver=4.7.2"}};\n\t\t\t!function(a,b,c){function d(a){var b,c,d,e,f=String.fromCharCode;if(!k||!k.fillText)return!1;switch(k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.textBaseline="top",k.font="600 32px Arial",a){case"flag":return k.fillText(f(55356,56826,55356,56819),0,0),!(j.toDataURL().length<3e3)&&(k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55356,57331,65039,8205,55356,57096),0,0),b=j.toDataURL(),k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55356,57331,55356,57096),0,0),c=j.toDataURL(),b!==c);case"emoji4":return k.fillText(f(55357,56425,55356,57341,8205,55357,56507),0,0),d=j.toDataURL(),k.clearRect(0,0,j.width,j.height),k.fillText(f(55357,56425,55356,57341,55357,56507),0,0),e=j.toDataURL(),d!==e}return!1}function e(a){var c=b.createElement("script");c.src=a,c.defer=c.type="text/javascript",b.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(c)}var f,g,h,i,j=b.createElement("canvas"),k=j.getContext&&j.getContext("2d");for(i=Array("flag","emoji4"),c.supports={everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},h=0;h<i.length;h++)c.supports[i[h]]=d(i[h]),c.supports.everything=c.supports.everything&&c.supports[i[h]],"flag"!==i[h]&&(c.supports.everythingExceptFlag=c.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&c.supports[i[h]]);c.supports.everythingExceptFlag=c.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&!c.supports.flag,c.DOMReady=!1,c.readyCallback=function(){c.DOMReady=!0},c.supports.everything||(g=function(){c.readyCallback()},b.addEventListener?(b.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",g,!1),a.addEventListener("load",g,!1)):(a.attachEvent("onload",g),b.attachEvent("onreadystatechange",function(){"complete"===b.readyState&&c.readyCallback()})),f=c.source||{},f.concatemoji?e(f.concatemoji):f.wpemoji&&f.twemoji&&(e(f.twemoji),e(f.wpemoji)))}(window,document,window._wpemojiSettings);\n\t\t</script>\n\t\t<style type="text/css">\nimg.wp-smiley,\nimg.emoji {\n\tdisplay: inline !important;\n\tborder: none !important;\n\tbox-shadow: none !important;\n\theight: 1em !important;\n\twidth: 1em !important;\n\tmargin: 0 .07em !important;\n\tvertical-align: -0.1em !important;\n\tbackground: none !important;\n\tpadding: 0 !important;\n}\n</style>\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'infinity-enterprise-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/C:/inetpub/wwwroot/InsuranceBlog/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/enterprise.css?ver=2012-06-18\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'fb_data_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/feedburner-form/control/fbstyle.css?ver=4.7.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'cptch_stylesheet-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/captcha/css/front_end_style.css?ver=4.2.8\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'dashicons-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/css/dashicons.min.css?ver=4.7.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'cptch_desktop_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/captcha/css/desktop_style.css?ver=4.2.8\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'cntctfrm_form_style-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-plugin/css/form_style.css?ver=4.0.4\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'SFSIPLUSmainCss-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/css/sfsi-style.css?ver=4.7.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'enterprise-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/style.css?ver=4.7.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js?ver=1.12.4\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery-migrate.min.js?ver=1.4.1\'></script>\n<link rel=\'https://api.w.org/\' href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-json/\' />\n<link rel="EditURI" type="application/rsd+xml" title="RSD" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/xmlrpc.php?rsd" />\n<link rel="wlwmanifest" type="application/wlwmanifest+xml" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/wlwmanifest.xml" /> \n<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 4.7.2" />\n    \t<script>\r\n\t\t\tjQuery(document).ready(function(e) {\r\n                jQuery("body").addClass("sfsi_plus_2.54")\r\n            });\r\n\t\t\tfunction sfsi_plus_processfurther(ref) {\r\n\t\t\t\tvar feed_id = \'UVd6R09rdStqbjdtclRTSGlnSVowaHVGaDNvUk0vZFlKYXBleC9BZGNFS3Q5U2FLOEhZdktyM0VyODhGdWw1M0RMSjNnNDF5STFmdGxNWUdtbVJMTDZxaG13cEdrenQvUEFNemJEQVhhbnU4RHpDcUFNR3I5cWlNalNwVzBDT2V8NnduS1pEUTJRbkVTQnZ6N3pJVnh5dW5GRTdZSzUxdEluaVdMemhJenY3az0=\';\r\n\t\t\t\tvar feedtype = 8;\r\n\t\t\t\tvar email = jQuery(ref).find(\'input[name="data[Widget][email]"]\').val();\r\n\t\t\t\tvar filter = /^([a-zA-Z0-9_\\.\\-])+\\@(([a-zA-Z0-9\\-])+\\.)+([a-zA-Z0-9]{2,4})+$/;\r\n\t\t\t\tif ((email != "Enter your email") && (filter.test(email))) {\r\n\t\t\t\t\tif (feedtype == "8") {\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar url = "http://www.specificfeeds.com/widgets/subscribeWidget/"+feed_id+"/"+feedtype;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\twindow.open(url, "popupwindow", "scrollbars=yes,width=1080,height=760");\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\treturn true;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t\t} else {\r\n\t\t\t\t\talert("Please enter email address");\r\n\t\t\t\t\tjQuery(ref).find(\'input[name="data[Widget][email]"]\').focus();\r\n\t\t\t\t\treturn false;\r\n\t\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t</script>\r\n    \t<style type="text/css" aria-selected="true">\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twidth: 100% !important;\r\n\t\t\t\theight: auto !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tborder: 1px solid #b5b5b5 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpadding: 18px 0px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tbackground-color: #ffffff !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner form\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\tmargin: 0 20px !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner h5\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-weight: bold !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 16px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tmargin: 0 0 10px !important;\r\n    \t\t\tpadding: 0 !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscription_form_field {\r\n\t\t\t\tmargin: 5px 0 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\twidth: 100% !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tdisplay: inline-flex;\r\n\t\t\t\tdisplay: -webkit-inline-flex;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscription_form_field input {\r\n\t\t\t\twidth: 100% !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tpadding: 10px 0px !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=email]\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-style: normal !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 14px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=email]::-webkit-input-placeholder {\r\n\t\t\t   font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-style: normal !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 14px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=email]:-moz-placeholder { /* Firefox 18- */\r\n\t\t\t    font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-style: normal !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 14px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=email]::-moz-placeholder {  /* Firefox 19+ */\r\n\t\t\t    font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-style: normal !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 14px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=email]:-ms-input-placeholder {  \r\n\t\t\t  \tfont-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-style: normal !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 14px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t\t.sfsi_plus_subscribe_Popinner input[type=submit]\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfont-weight: bold !important;\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcolor: #000000 !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tfont-size: 16px !important;\r\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center !important;\r\n\t\t\t\tbackground-color: #dedede !important;\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t</style>\r\n\t <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">\t\t<style type="text/css">\n\t\t\t#header h1,\n\t\t\t#header h1 a,\n\t\t\t#header h1 a:visited,\n\t\t\t#header h4,\n\t\t\t#header h4 a,\n\t\t\t#header h4 a:visited,\n\t\t\t.header-left {\n\t\t\t\tcolor: #333333;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t</style>\n</head>\n\n<body class="home blog">\n<script>\r\n  (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i[\'GoogleAnalyticsObject\']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){\r\n  (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),\r\n  m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)\r\n  })(window,document,\'script\',\'//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js\',\'ga\');\r\n\r\n  ga(\'create\', \'UA-47779705-1\', \'grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com\');\r\n  ga(\'send\', \'pageview\');\r\n\r\n</script>\n<div id="header">\n\t<div class="header-left">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/">Insurance Coverage Law Blog</a></h1>\n\t\t\t\t<p id="description"></p>\n\t</div>\n\t<div class="header-right">\n\t\t<form method="get" id="searchform" action="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/" >\n\t\t\t<div><label class="hidden" for="s">Search:</label>\n\t\t\t<input type="text" value="" name="s" id="s" />\n\t\t\t<input type="submit" id="searchsubmit" value="Go" /></div>\n\t\t</form>\n\t</div>\n\n</div>\n\n<div id="access">\n\t<div id="navHeader" class="navHeader nav"></div>\n\t<div id="nav">\n\t\t<div class="navleft">\n\t\t\t<a href="http://www.gordonrees.com/practices/insurance"><img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/images/GRSM-logo-color.png"style="position:absolute; left:10px; top: 8px; " /></a>\n\t\t</div>\n\t\t<div id="supernav" class="navRightMenuLinks nav">\n\t\t\t<!--- <a class="rsslink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/feed/">Posts</a>\n\t\t\t<a class="rsslink" rel="nofollow" href="https://insurancecoveragelawblog.disqus.com/latest.rss">Comments</a> --->\n\t\t\t<div class="menu-main-menu-container"><ul id="menu-main-menu" class="menu"><li id="menu-item-20" class="menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom current-menu-item current_page_item menu-item-20"><a href="/">Home</a></li>\n<li id="menu-item-19" class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-19"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/about/">About</a></li>\n<li id="menu-item-17" class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-17"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/services/">Services</a></li>\n<li id="menu-item-18" class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-18"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/contact/">Contact</a></li>\n</ul></div>\t\t</div>\n\t</div>\n\t<div id="headerImage"class="subnav nav"></div>\n</div>\n\n<div id="wrap">\n<div id="content">\n\n\t<div id="content-left">\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-581 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-appraisal category-first-party-policy category-property-insurance-coverage">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/">Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/kreid/" title="Posts by Kelcie Reid" class="author url fn" rel="author">Kelcie Reid</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/romalley/" title="Posts by Regen O&#039;Malley" class="author url fn" rel="author">Regen O&#039;Malley</a>  on September 25, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="581 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=581">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/" addthis:title="Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>Concluding that the trial court \xe2\x80\x9cimproperly substituted its judgment\xe2\x80\x9d for that of an appraisal panel, the Connecticut Supreme Court invalidated the trial court\xe2\x80\x99s decision to vacate an arbitration award for property loss caused by a tree falling on the insured\xe2\x80\x99s home. <em>See</em> <em>Kellogg v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co.</em>, 326 Conn. 638 (2017). Pending the outcome of this appeal, the insured filed a second suit against her insurer, Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company (\xe2\x80\x9cMiddlesex\xe2\x80\x9d), alleging breach of contract under the homeowner\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cRestorationist\xe2\x80\x9d insurance policy, as well as various extra-contractual claims based on the allegedly improper and delayed adjustment of the claim. Notwithstanding the overlapping nature of these claims with those addressed by the arbitration panel, the court denied the insurer\xe2\x80\x99s Motion to Dismiss. Thus, the second lawsuit remains pending despite the Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s finding in favor of the insurer.</p>\n<p>Both cases revolve around Sally Kellogg\xe2\x80\x99s single-family property located in Norwalk, Connecticut, which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and sits in Norwalk\xe2\x80\x99s Green Historic District. When Kellogg, an interior designer, purchased the property in 2002, she also purchased the Restorationist policy on the home and its contents. The policy provided for unlimited coverage for repairs, including the replacement or restoration cost of the property without deduction for depreciation.</p>\n<p><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-583" src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/9-25-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" srcset="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/9-25-300x199.jpg 300w, http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/9-25.jpg 700w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Eight years later, a four-and-a-half ton tree fell on the house during a severe storm, breaking through the roof and causing extensive structural and other property damage. Following the insured\xe2\x80\x99s submission of her claim, a dispute arose regarding the extent of the damage and the cost of repair. Kellogg invoked the appraisal provision of the policy, which provided for unrestricted arbitration in which a panel of three arbitrators\xe2\x80\x94one appointed by each party, and a referee appointed by the two other arbitrators\xe2\x80\x94had the power to decide issues of law and fact not subject to judicial review. The arbitration proceedings resulted in a combined award of $539,901.84 for both replacement/restoration cost and actual cash value loss to personal property contained within the house.</p>\n<p>Kellogg, who had argued for restoration costs exceeding $1.5 million, filed an application in the Connecticut Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award, which Middlesex attempted to dismiss as untimely. Though the trial court stated it would only rule on the motion to dismiss, it went on to hold eight days of trial, which ultimately resulted in a finding that the award violated Connecticut General Statutes Section 52\xe2\x80\x93418(a) because: (1) the trial court disagreed with the amount of the award, and (2) the decision of the appraisal panel \xe2\x80\x9cevidenced a manifest disregard of the nature and terms and conditions of the Restorationist insurance policy\xe2\x80\x9d in violation of the statute. The trial court vacated the arbitration award and denied Middlesex\xe2\x80\x99s Motion to Dismiss.</p>\n<p>In overturning this decision on Middlesex\xe2\x80\x99s appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court had improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitration panel and failed to follow the proper standard for evaluating a claim of \xe2\x80\x9cmanifest disregard of the law.\xe2\x80\x9d In doing so, the Court recognized the high level of deference paid to arbitrators in unrestricted arbitration proceedings, such that \xe2\x80\x9ca court may vacate an unrestricted arbitration award only under certain limited conditions: (1) the award rules on the constitutionality of a statute, (2) the award violates clear public policy, or (3) the award contravenes one or more of the statutory proscriptions of \xc2\xa7 52\xe2\x80\x93418.\xe2\x80\x9d (Internal citations removed). Further, the award resulting from unrestricted arbitration is not subject to <em>de novo</em> review even for errors of law.</p>\n<p>Under this standard, the Supreme Court held, the trial court overstepped the scope of its judicial review, erroneously substituting its judgment for that of the arbitrators by essentially re-trying all of the facts found by the arbitrators regarding an appropriate award to the insured. To permit a party to object to an award simply because the party dislikes the outcome, the Court said, \xe2\x80\x9cwould completely destroy the deference our law affords to the arbitration process by allowing the trial court to substitute its own judgment on the merits of the question submitted to arbitration.\xe2\x80\x9d In the absence of a claim that \xe2\x80\x9cthe arbitrators refused to postpone a hearing, refused to hear any of the plaintiff&#8217;s evidence, or otherwise committed a procedural error,\xe2\x80\x9d the trial court should not have vacated the arbitration award, which was \xe2\x80\x9cfinal and binding.\xe2\x80\x9d The trial court further erred by construing policy language, when it should not have engaged in <em>de novo</em> review of the policy language at all. However, disagreeing with the trial court\xe2\x80\x99s construction of policy language, the Supreme Court also declined to vacate the arbitration award on the premise that the panel had \xe2\x80\x9cmanifestly disregard[ed]\xe2\x80\x9d the law in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-418(a)(4) \xe2\x80\x9cwhen it permitted the defendant to withhold depreciation costs until the plaintiff had incurred a debt for the repair or replacement of the property.\xe2\x80\x9d</p>\n<p>Despite this good news for Middlesex, the company is still saddled with the defense of the second lawsuit. Stemming from the same property loss and claim, this subsequent lawsuit asserts both contractual and extra-contractual claims of bad faith, negligent adjustment of the claim, violations of Connecticut\xe2\x80\x99s Unfair Trade Practices Act and Unfair Insurance Practices Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and estoppel. Middlesex moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of ripeness as well as under the \xe2\x80\x9cprior pending action\xe2\x80\x9d doctrine on the basis that all of the causes of action complained of arose from Middlesex\xe2\x80\x99s allegedly improper conduct in the adjustment and appraisal of the claim.</p>\n<p>Nonetheless, the Superior Court sided with Kellogg, categorically denying Middlesex\xe2\x80\x99s motion to dismiss. In doing so, it held that the new action is separate and distinct from the insured\xe2\x80\x99s application to vacate the award, and that her current claims are (or were) not contingent on the outcome of the arbitration appeal. The Court thus allowed the underlying action to proceed, notwithstanding that Kellogg\xe2\x80\x99s claims directly related to the disputed adjustment and appraisal of the loss. For the same reasons, the Superior Court also denied Middlesex\xe2\x80\x99s subsequent motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.</p>\n<p>Insurers should thus take note: a win in connection with issues of coverage and appraisal does not always avoid other potential liabilities arising from the adjustment of claims.</p>\n<p>A link to the Connecticut Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision is available on the judicial branch website: <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawjournal/Docs/CTReports/2017/34/cr326_7908.pdf">http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawjournal/Docs/CTReports/2017/34/cr326_7908.pdf</a> (p. 100).</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/appraisal/" rel="category tag">Appraisal</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/first-party-policy/" rel="category tag">First Party Policy</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/property-insurance-coverage/" rel="category tag">Property Insurance Coverage</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-577 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-duty-to-defend category-personal-and-advertising-injury category-trigger-of-coverage">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/">Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/skim/" title="Posts by Sally Kim" class="author url fn" rel="author">Sally Kim</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/sries/" title="Posts by Stephanie Ries" class="author url fn" rel="author">Stephanie Ries</a>  on September 12, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="577 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=577">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/" addthis:title="Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>Until recently, Georgia has had no case law addressing insurance coverage trigger for a malicious prosecution claim. But in 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals finally rendered an opinion addressing this specific issue, with a twist in that the claimant was arrested during the policy period but was charged and prosecuted after the policy expired.</p>\n<p>In <em>Zook v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.</em>, 784 S.E.2d 119 (2016), the claimant was arrested on May 21, 2009 after an incident at the insured\xe2\x80\x99s nightclub. The claimant was charged with simple battery on March 1, 2010 and was prosecuted thereafter. After the jury found the claimant not guilty of simple battery, he commenced a lawsuit against the nightclub and its employees for false imprisonment, battery, negligence, malicious prosecution and malicious arrest. While that action was pending, the claimant filed a declaratory judgment action against the same defendants and Arch Specialty Insurance Company (\xe2\x80\x9cArch\xe2\x80\x9d), which issued a CGL policy (\xe2\x80\x9cPolicy\xe2\x80\x9d) to the nightclub from June 27, 2008 to June 27, 2009. The policy provided coverage for injury arising out of malicious prosecution if the offense was committed during the policy period. Arch took the position that the \xe2\x80\x9coffense\xe2\x80\x9d took place on March 1, 2010, when the claimant was charged with the crime for which he was prosecuted (simple battery). Because the Policy expired on June 27, 2009, Arch argued that no offense took place during the policy period.\xc2\xa0 The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Arch.</p>\n<p>The Georgia Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. The Court noted that Georgia appellate courts had not yet addressed the issue of when a malicious prosecution claim arises for purposes of triggering insurance coverage. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the majority of other jurisdictions have held that \xe2\x80\x9ccoverage is triggered when the insured sets in motion the legal machinery of the state.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0<em>Id.</em> at 674. However, the Court disagreed with Arch\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation of the majority holding because Arch focused on when the claimant was charged and relied on case law that dealt with a scenario in which the claimant was arrested and charged on the same date.</p>\n<p>The Georgia Court of Appeals held that in this case, the arrest is the \xe2\x80\x9cbad act\xe2\x80\x9d of the insured that set the legal machinery of the state in action.\xc2\xa0 <em>Id.</em> at 675. In other words, the arrest was the \xe2\x80\x9coffense\xe2\x80\x9d that invoked the judicial process against the claimant, and the arrest took place during the Arch policy period. The Court held,</p>\n<p style="padding-left: 30px;">From the standpoint of a reasonable person in the position of the insured, policy coverage for injury arising from a malicious prosecution occurring during the policy period exists if the insured\xe2\x80\x99s conduct in instituting such a prosecution took place during the covered period. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the majority rule that when the contract does not specify, insurance coverage is triggered on a potential claim for malicious prosecution when the insured sets in motion the legal machinery of the state.</p>\n<p><em>Id.</em> at 675-6.</p>\n<p>The analysis pertaining to the trigger of coverage for wrongful incarceration and malicious prosecution cases are becoming more intricate and detail-oriented as the courts throughout the country are exposed to different fact patterns. To the extent that the claimant is arrested and charged during different policy periods, it appears that the first event of the arrest will be considered as the event that triggers coverage.</p>\n<p>The next installment will review the law in Ohio. In the meantime, if there are any questions about other jurisdictions or jurisdictions already discussed, please contact us (<a href="mailto:sallykim@grsm.com">sallykim@grsm.com</a> or <a href="mailto:sries@grsm.com">sries@grsm.com</a>) and we can address your questions directly.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/duty-to-defend/" rel="category tag">Duty to Defend</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/personal-and-advertising-injury/" rel="category tag">Personal and Advertising Injury</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/trigger-of-coverage/" rel="category tag">Trigger of Coverage</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-573 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-bad-faith category-commercial-general-liability category-duty-to-defend category-first-party-policy category-pollution-exclusion">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/">Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/skim/" title="Posts by Sally Kim" class="author url fn" rel="author">Sally Kim</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/sries/" title="Posts by Stephanie Ries" class="author url fn" rel="author">Stephanie Ries</a>  on August 29, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="573 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=573">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/" addthis:title="Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>We <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-applies-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-third-party-liability-policy-to-find-a-duty-to-defend/">previously reported</a> the Washington Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision in <em>Xia, et al. v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, et al.</em>, 188 Wn.2d 171, 393 P.3d 748 (2017), in which the Court applied the efficient proximate cause rule to a third-party liability policy to find a duty to defend.</p>\n<p>To recap, Washington law requires insurers to assess and investigate coverage under first-party insurance policies by applying the efficient proximate cause analysis. Until <em>Xia</em>, the efficient proximate cause rule has only been applied to first party insurance policies in Washington. But the Washington Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision in <em>Xia</em> changed that by holding that an insurer must consider the efficient proximate cause rule in determining its duty to defend under a CGL policy.</p>\n<p>The issue in <em>Xia</em> was whether the pollution exclusion applied to relieve ProBuilders of its duty to defend a claim against the insured alleging that carbon monoxide was released into the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s house through a defectively installed vent. ProBuilders denied coverage to the insured contractor, in part, under the pollution exclusion. The Washington Supreme Court held that while ProBuilders did not err in determining that the plain language of its pollution exclusion applied to the release of carbon monoxide into Xia\xe2\x80\x99s home, \xe2\x80\x9cunder the \xe2\x80\x98eight corners rule\xe2\x80\x99 of reviewing the complaint and the insurance policy, ProBuilders should have noted that a potential issue of efficient proximate cause existed,\xe2\x80\x9d as Xia alleged negligence in her original complaint, <em>i.e.</em> failure to properly install venting for the hot water heater and failure to properly discover the disconnected venting.</p>\n<p>Ultimately, the Court concluded that the efficient proximate cause of the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s loss was a covered peril \xe2\x80\x93 the negligent installation of a hot water heater. Even though ProBuilders correctly applied the language of its pollution exclusion to the release of carbon monoxide into the house, the Court ruled that ProBuilders breached its duty to defend as it failed to consider an alleged covered occurrence that was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law to the claimant with regard to her breach of contract and bad faith claims.</p>\n<p>Soon after the Washington Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision, ProBuilders filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision. However, on August 17, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court denied the motion, leaving in place the holding that insurers must take the efficient proximate cause rule when analyzing coverage under third-party policies.</p>\n<p>As discussed in our earlier post, the efficient proximate cause rule applies \xe2\x80\x9cwhen two or more perils combine in sequence to cause a loss and a <em>covered</em> peril is the predominant or efficient cause of the loss.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0<em>Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.</em>, 174 Wn.2d 501, 276 P.3d 300 (2012). \xe2\x80\x9cIf the initial event, the \xe2\x80\x98efficient proximate cause,\xe2\x80\x99 is a covered peril, then there is coverage under the policy regardless of whether subsequent events within the chain, which may be causes-in-fact of the loss, are excluded by the policy.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0<em>Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co.</em>, 124 Wn.2d 618, 881 P.2d 210 (1994).</p>\n<p>Insurers must be extremely cautious when assessing the duty to defend and an exclusion that could potentially preclude coverage. Under <em>Xia</em>, liability insurers must examine the underlying complaint very carefully to determine whether there could potentially be multiple causes of a loss, and if so, which cause is the initiating cause. If the initiating cause is potentially a covered event, then there may be coverage and the insurer must provide a defense under reservation of rights in order to minimize bad faith exposure.</p>\n<p>If you would like more information on the efficient proximate cause rule in Washington, please feel free to contact Sally S. Kim (<a href="sallykim@grsm.com">sallykim@grsm.com</a> or 206-695-5147) or Stephanie Ries (<a href="sries@grsm.com">sries@grsm.com</a> or 206-695-5123).</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/bad-faith/" rel="category tag">Bad Faith</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/commercial-general-liability/" rel="category tag">Commercial General Liability</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/duty-to-defend/" rel="category tag">Duty to Defend</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/first-party-policy/" rel="category tag">First Party Policy</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/pollution-exclusion/" rel="category tag">Pollution Exclusion</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-568 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-appellate category-bad-faith category-commercial-general-liability category-first-party-policy">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/">The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/skim/" title="Posts by Sally Kim" class="author url fn" rel="author">Sally Kim</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/swodnik/" title="Posts by Shannon Wodnik" class="author url fn" rel="author">Shannon Wodnik</a>  on July 31, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="568 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=568">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/" addthis:title="The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>Washington\xe2\x80\x99s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (\xe2\x80\x9cIFCA\xe2\x80\x9d) provides insureds with a statutory cause of action against their insurers for wrongful denials of coverage, in addition to a traditional bad faith cause of action. Unlike a bad faith cause of action, the IFCA allows for enhanced damages under certain circumstances. Under the language of the statute, \xe2\x80\x9cany first party claimant to a policy of insurance\xe2\x80\x9d may bring a claim under IFCA against its insurer for the unreasonable denial of a claim for coverage or payment of benefits. There has been a split of authority in Washington among both the state appellate courts and federal district courts regarding whether the term \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d refers only to first-party policies (i.e., a homeowner\xe2\x80\x99s policy or commercial property policy) or whether it refers to insureds under both first-party and liability policies (e.g., CGL policies which cover the insured\xe2\x80\x99s liability to others). The IFCA expressly defines the phrase \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d as \xe2\x80\x9can individual, \xe2\x80\xa6 or other legal entity asserting a right to payment as a covered person under an insurance policy or insurance contract arising out of the occurrence of the contingency or loss covered by such a policy or contract.\xe2\x80\x9d</p>\n<p>The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d means an insured under both first-party and liability policies (<em>Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.</em>, 176 Wn.App. 185 (2013)), but Division Three held that the IFCA applies exclusively to first-party insurance contracts (<em>Tarasyuk v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co.</em>, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2124 (2015)).</p>\n<p>In the federal courts, the majority of decisions from the Western District of Washington have held that an insured with third-party coverage or first-party coverage can be a \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d under IFCA.\xc2\xa0<em>Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Christensen, Inc.</em>, 140 F. Supp. 3d 11097 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2015 ) (Judge Coughenour); <em>City of Bothell v. Berkley Regional Specialty Ins. Co.</em>, 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 145644 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2014) (Judge Lasnik); <em>Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co.</em>, 2015 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 71256 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2015) (Judge Jones); <em>Workland &amp; Witherspoon, PLLC v. Evanston Ins. Co.</em>, 141 F.Supp.3d 1148 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2015) (Judge Peterson). These decisions held that any insured who has a right to file a claim under the insurance policy is a \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d under the IFCA regardless of whether the policy provides first-party or third-party coverage.</p>\n<p>However, Judge Pechman of the Western District of Washington ruled that an insured with third-party coverage is not a \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant\xe2\x80\x9d under IFCA in <em>Cox v. Continental Casualty Co.</em>, 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 68081 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014) and two subsequent cases. In <em>Cox</em>, Judge Pechman dismissed plaintiff\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA claim on the ground that the insurance policy was a \xe2\x80\x9cthird-party policy,\xe2\x80\x9d <em>i.e. </em>a third-party liability policy, and therefore the insured (who assigned his claim to the plaintiffs) was not a \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party claimant.\xe2\x80\x9d The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the <em>Cox </em>decision on appeal, effectively resolving the split of authority in the federal courts in favor of a more limited interpretation of the IFCA.\xc2\xa0<em>Cox v. Continental Casualty Co.</em>, 2017 U.S. App. 11722 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. June 30, 2017).</p>\n<p>Those watching this issue and looking for a reasoned analysis resolving the split of authority among the federal district courts in Washington will be disappointed, as the Ninth Circuit provided no basis for its holding on the issue, not even a recognition of the split among the courts. On the issue, the Court merely stated \xe2\x80\x9c[t]he policy in question is not a first party policy; thus, the Plaintiffs, standing in [the insured\xe2\x80\x99s] shoes, cannot be a first party claimant.\xe2\x80\x9d The court\xe2\x80\x99s failure to provide its reasoning for this holding is surprising, given that the parties addressed the split of authority in their briefs. Nonetheless, insurers should take note of this important decision limiting the scope of the IFCA in Washington\xe2\x80\x99s federal courts.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/appellate/" rel="category tag">Appellate</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/bad-faith/" rel="category tag">Bad Faith</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/commercial-general-liability/" rel="category tag">Commercial General Liability</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/first-party-policy/" rel="category tag">First Party Policy</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-564 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-insurance category-rescission">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/">California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/cwagner/" title="Posts by Christopher Wagner" class="author url fn" rel="author">Christopher Wagner</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/tdo/" title="Posts by Tino Do" class="author url fn" rel="author">Tino Do</a>  on July 25, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="564 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=564">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/" addthis:title="California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>In <em>Duarte v<strong>. </strong>Pacific Specialty Insurance Company</em>, a California appeals court found that an insurer was not entitled to rescind an insurance policy due to material misrepresentation and/or concealment of material facts as a matter of law. The court held that the insurer could not prove that the insured had made misrepresentations when he applied for the policy because the application questions at issue were ambiguous.</p>\n<p>Victor Duarte bought a tenant-occupied rental property in 2001. Sometime thereafter, the daughter of the tenant moved into the rental property with her father, and continued to reside there after her father\xe2\x80\x99s death in 2010. In February 2012, Duarte served the daughter with an eviction notice. The daughter did not leave the rental property and Duarte did not take any further action to remove her.</p>\n<p>In April 2012, Duarte electronically submitted an application for a landlord insurance policy with defendant Pacific. Pacific issued a policy to Duarte covering the rental property the same day.</p>\n<p>In June 2012, the tenant/daughter filed a lawsuit against Duarte for habitability defects at the rental property which allegedly existed since 2009. The lawsuit alleged that Duarte had been notified of these defects, and sought various damages arising from the defects. In August 2012, Duarte tendered defense of the lawsuit to Pacific which denied coverage and any duty to defend. Duarte then sued Pacific for breach of contract and other claims on the grounds that Pacific not only failed to defend the tenant lawsuit but also wrongfully cancelled his policy. In responding to the lawsuit, Pacific asserted a right to rescind the policy due to material misrepresentations on the application.</p>\n<p>In cross-motions for summary judgment/adjudication, Pacific argued that it was entitled to rescind the policy because Duarte made material misrepresentations when he answered \xe2\x80\x9cno\xe2\x80\x9d to two questions on the application: (1) whether he knew of any disputes concerning the property; and (2) whether there were any businesses conducted on the property. In support of its position, Pacific submitted records regarding a March 2012 complaint filed by the tenant/daughter against Duarte with a public agency. Pacific also submitted a transcript of Duarte\xe2\x80\x99s deposition in which he testified about his understanding about the complaint filed against him by the tenant/daughter. The trial court granted Pacific\xe2\x80\x99s motion and denied Duarte\xe2\x80\x99s motion. Duarte appealed, and the appeals court reversed.</p>\n<p>The court held that Pacific did not meet its initial burden of proving that Duarte made misrepresentations on the insurance application. The court noted that the first application question at issue \xe2\x80\x93 \xe2\x80\x9cHas damage remained unrepaired from previous claim and/or pending claims, and/or known or potential (a) defects, (b) claim disputes, (c) property disputes, and/or (d) lawsuit?\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93 had \xe2\x80\x9cgarbled syntax\xe2\x80\x9d and was \xe2\x80\x9cutterly ambiguous.\xe2\x80\x9d The court found that the evidence submitted by Pacific showed that Duarte knew of claims and/or disputes concerning the property. However, the court rejected Pacific\xe2\x80\x99s position that the question required the answer, \xe2\x80\x9cyes\xe2\x80\x9d if there was unrepaired damage, any open or pending claims, potential defect, property disputes, or potential lawsuits. Given the question\xe2\x80\x99s ambiguity, the court found that Duarte properly answered, \xe2\x80\x9cno\xe2\x80\x9d because he reasonably interpreted the question to ask whether the property had unrepaired damage associated in some way with previous or pending claims, defects, claims disputes, property disputes or potential lawsuits.</p>\n<p>With regard to the second application question \xe2\x80\x93 \xe2\x80\x9cIs there any type of business conducted on the premises?\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93 the court noted that Pacific submitted evidence that showed that Duarte knew the tenant and tenant/daughter occasionally sold motorcycle parts from the rental property. Nonetheless, the court held that Duarte properly answered, \xe2\x80\x9cno,\xe2\x80\x9d because he reasonably interpreted the question as referring to \xe2\x80\x9cregular and ongoing business activity,\xe2\x80\x9d of which there was none to his knowledge.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/insurance/" rel="category tag">Insurance</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/rescission/" rel="category tag">Rescission</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-561 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-tcpa">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/second-circuit-holds-that-tcpa-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked/">Second Circuit Holds that TCPA Contractual Consent Cannot be Revoked</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/tblatchley/" title="Posts by Thomas Blatchley" class="author url fn" rel="author">Thomas Blatchley</a>  on July 17, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/second-circuit-holds-that-tcpa-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="561 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=561">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/second-circuit-holds-that-tcpa-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Second Circuit Holds that TCPA Contractual Consent Cannot be Revoked"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/second-circuit-holds-that-tcpa-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked/" addthis:title="Second Circuit Holds that TCPA Contractual Consent Cannot be Revoked"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>In\xc2\xa0<em>Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs.</em>, No.162104-cv, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057 (2d Cir. June 22, 2017), the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court decision and held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\xe2\x80\x9cTCPA\xe2\x80\x9d) does not permit a consumer to unilaterally revoke consent to be called when that consent is given as part of a bargained-for exchange.</p>\n<p>The facts of the case are brief.\xc2\xa0 In 2012 Reyes leased a new Lincoln MKZ luxury sedan, which was financed by Lincoln Automotive Financial Services (\xe2\x80\x9cLincoln\xe2\x80\x9d). Reyes provided his cell phone number in the lease application and the lease itself contained a number of provisions to which Reyes assented when finalizing the agreement. Specifically, Reyes consented to receive manual or automated telephone calls from Lincoln. When Reyes defaulted on his payments, Lincoln called Reyes on several occasions in an attempt to cure his default. Reyes claimed that he mailed a letter to Lincoln, revoking his consent to be contacted by Lincoln. Nonetheless, Lincoln continued to call Reyes. Reyes subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York alleging TCPA violations, seeking $720,000 in damages for Lincoln\xe2\x80\x99s 530 calls to him. The trial court granted summary judgment to Lincoln, holding that (1) Reyes failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he had ever revoked his consent to be contacted by Lincoln and (2) that, in any event, the TCPA does not permit a party to a legally binding contract to unilaterally revoke a bargained-for consent to be contacted by telephone.</p>\n<p>On appeal, the Second Circuit first addressed whether Reyes introduced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding Lincoln\xe2\x80\x99s alleged notice of Reyes\xe2\x80\x99s revocation of consent. The Court stated that summary judgment on this issue was improper. Reyes submitted his sworn deposition testimony; a copy of the letter revoking his consent; and an affidavit stating that he had revoked consent. Based on these documents, the Court found that the lower court erred in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Reyes revoked his consent.</p>\n<p>Next, the Court addressed the issue of whether the TCPA permits a party to revoke consent, even if that consent was given as part of a contractual agreement. The Court explained that \xe2\x80\x9cconsent\xe2\x80\x9d is not always revocable, and distinguished the instant case from other cases, which held otherwise. In<em>\xc2\xa0Gage v. Dell Fin. Servs.</em>\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0<em>Osorio v. State Farm Bank F.S.B.</em>, the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts, respectively, found, as confirmed by a 2015 FCC ruling, that consumers can revoke consent when it is given gratuitously, and is not incorporated into a binding legal agreement. The Second Circuit agreed with that proposition. But in the present case, when consent is provided as consideration to a bargained-for bilateral contract, consent is not revocable. Indeed, the Second Circuit observed that black-letter law dictates that a party cannot alter a bilateral contract by revoking a term without the consent of the counterparty.</p>\n<p>Reyes also argued that the TCPA permits a party to revoke consent because \xe2\x80\x9cconsent\xe2\x80\x9d was not an \xe2\x80\x9cessential\xe2\x80\x9d term of the contract. The Court dismissed Reyes\xe2\x80\x99s claim on the ground that a contractual term does not need to be \xe2\x80\x9cessential\xe2\x80\x9d in order for it to be enforced. Instead, the Court explained that a fundamental rule of contract law is that parties may bind themselves to terms so long as the principles of contract formation are met. And a party who has agreed to a particular contractual term in a valid contract cannot unilaterally renege at a later time.</p>\n<p>Lastly, Reyes contended that because the TCPA is a remedial statute, enacted to protect consumers from unwanted telephone calls, any ambiguities should be construed to further its purpose. Although the Court agreed that a liberal reading of an ambiguous term in the statute might favor a right to revoke consent, the Court ultimately rejected Reyes\xe2\x80\x99s contention because the statute is not ambiguous in the first place.</p>\n<p>The Court concluded by noting it was sensitive to the argument that businesses may undermine the effectiveness of the TCPA by inserting \xe2\x80\x9cconsent\xe2\x80\x9d clauses into contracts, thereby making revocation impossible in many instances. The Court properly acknowledged that this hypothetical concern, if valid, is grounded in public policy considerations; an issue for Congress, not the courts, to resolve.</p>\n<p><em>Reyes</em>\xc2\xa0is a significant decision because it addresses an emerging issue of whether consent can be unilaterally revoked by a consumer under the TCPA. The Second Circuit\xe2\x80\x99s decision is a big win for financial institutions and other defendants that have consent provisions within their binding agreements. Going forward, financial institutions litigating in the Second Circuit will be shielded, or at least have a powerful defense, from TCPA claimants who claim that they revoked consent. In addition, while\xc2\xa0<em>Reyes</em>\xc2\xa0is only binding in Connecticut, Vermont and New York, this decision may lend itself as the hallmark to other circuit courts that have yet to address this issue. In the meantime, businesses who are faced with TCPA lawsuits should consider adding a consent provision within their contracts to limit exposure to future TCPA liability and current TCPA defendants should consider dispositive motions if the plaintiff consented to be called.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/tcpa/" rel="category tag">TCPA</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-557 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-fair-debt-collection-practices-act category-fdcpa">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/big-victory-for-debt-buying-industry-supreme-court-holds-that-debt-buyers-are-not-debt-collectors-under-the-fdcpa/">Big Victory for Debt Buying Industry: Supreme Court Holds That Debt Buyers Are Not \xe2\x80\x9cDebt Collectors\xe2\x80\x9d Under The FDCPA</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/tblatchley/" title="Posts by Thomas Blatchley" class="author url fn" rel="author">Thomas Blatchley</a>  on June 21, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/big-victory-for-debt-buying-industry-supreme-court-holds-that-debt-buyers-are-not-debt-collectors-under-the-fdcpa/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="557 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=557">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/big-victory-for-debt-buying-industry-supreme-court-holds-that-debt-buyers-are-not-debt-collectors-under-the-fdcpa/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Big Victory for Debt Buying Industry: Supreme Court Holds That Debt Buyers Are Not \xe2\x80\x9cDebt Collectors\xe2\x80\x9d Under The FDCPA"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/big-victory-for-debt-buying-industry-supreme-court-holds-that-debt-buyers-are-not-debt-collectors-under-the-fdcpa/" addthis:title="Big Victory for Debt Buying Industry: Supreme Court Holds That Debt Buyers Are Not \xe2\x80\x9cDebt Collectors\xe2\x80\x9d Under The FDCPA"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in <em>Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc</em>., 582 U.S. ___ (2017), that a company may collect on debts that it purchased for its own account without triggering the statutory definition of \xe2\x80\x9cdebt collector\xe2\x80\x9d under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The unanimous decision penned by Justice Gorsuch, his first as a Supreme Court Justice, was a resounding victory for the debt buying industry, especially given ever increasing individual and putative class actions alleging violations of the FDCPA in the multibillion dollar debt collection industry.</p>\n<p>The FDCPA authorizes private lawsuits and heavy fines to debt collectors who engage in unscrupulous collection practices. Under the Act, \xe2\x80\x9cdebt collectors\xe2\x80\x9d are defined as anyone who \xe2\x80\x9cregularly collects or attempts to collect . . . debts owed or due . . . another.\xe2\x80\x9d 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 1692a(6). But because the practice of buying and managing consumer debt has become more commonplace, the issue of whether consumer finance firms who purchase consumer debt are included within the Act\xe2\x80\x99s coverage was unclear.\xc2\xa0 While everyone agrees that the term embraced the repo man, the person hired by the creditor to collect an outstanding debt, it was unclear whether the person buying a debt and then trying to collect on it for himself made that person a debt collector.\xc2\xa0Circuit courts were divided on the issue, with some courts classifying debt buyers as creditors and other courts classifying them as debt collectors. In <em>Henson</em>, the Supreme Court resolved this Circuit split and held that debt buyers attempting to collect on that debt are excluded from the Act\xe2\x80\x99s coverage because they do not qualify as debt collectors.</p>\n<p>The complaint filed in the <em>Henson</em> case alleged that CitiFinancial Auto loaned money to the petitioners to finance the purchase of their cars. The petitioners defaulted on their loan and Santander later purchased the defaulted loans from the original lender, CitiFinancial Auto. After purchasing the defaulted loans, Santander engaged in collection practices that petitioners believed violated the FDCPA. The District Court and Fourth Circuit both ruled in favor of Santander on the ground that Santander did not qualify as a debt collector because it did not regularly seek to collect debts \xe2\x80\x9cowed . . . another,\xe2\x80\x9d but instead sought only to collect debts that it purchased and owned.</p>\n<p>The Court explained that debt buyers are not subject to the FDCPA because the Act\xe2\x80\x99s language only focuses on third-party collection agents. In its holding, the Court rejected petitioners\xe2\x80\x99 argument that debt buyers are also debt collectors because of Congress\xe2\x80\x99s use of the past participle of the verb \xe2\x80\x9cto owe.\xe2\x80\x9d Petitioners claimed that the statute\xe2\x80\x99s definition of a debt collector includes anyone who regularly collects debts previously owed to another. Instead, the Court found that past participles are commonly used as adjectives to describe the present state of things, and that the word \xe2\x80\x9cowed\xe2\x80\x9d is used to refer to present debt relationships. As a result, the Court observed that the text of the statute indicates that one has to attempt to collect debts owed to another in order to qualify as a debt collector under the Act.</p>\n<p>The Court also rejected petitioners\xe2\x80\x99 alternative argument that the FDCPA treats defaulted debt purchasers as traditional debt collectors because doing so best furthers the spirit of the Act. Petitioners contended that if Congress had been aware of the business involving purchasing defaulted debt, then it would have included them as traditional debt collectors because they pose similar risks of abusive collection practices. The Court explained that it was not its job to rewrite a statute under the banner of speculation. Likewise, the Court found that petitioners\xe2\x80\x99 policy arguments were not unassailable, because reasonable legislators could argue both ways on whether debt buyers should be treated as debt collectors under the Act. Certainly, the Court noted that these matters are for Congress to resolve, not the Supreme Court.</p>\n<p>The <em>Henson</em> decision has far reaching implications on the debt collection industry and provides comfort to companies who purchase bad-debt and then go out to collect on it. Because the <em>Henson</em> decision reveals that debt purchasers are not defined as debt collectors under the FDCPA, Congress\xe2\x80\x99s attempt to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices as a means to recoup money is severely weakened. The decision also clarifies that purchasers of defaulted debt now face less regulation in their collection process. Whether Congress decides to amend the FDCPA, and further regulate the debt collection industry, is something that the industry will keep a close eye on.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/fair-debt-collection-practices-act/" rel="category tag">Fair Debt Collection Practices Act</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/fdcpa/" rel="category tag">FDCPA</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-552 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-bad-faith category-commercial-general-liability category-duty-to-defend category-first-party-policy category-pollution-exclusion">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-applies-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-third-party-liability-policy-to-find-a-duty-to-defend/">Washington Supreme Court Applies the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to Third Party Liability Policy to Find a Duty to Defend</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/skim/" title="Posts by Sally Kim" class="author url fn" rel="author">Sally Kim</a>  on May 11, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-applies-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-third-party-liability-policy-to-find-a-duty-to-defend/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="552 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=552">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-applies-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-third-party-liability-policy-to-find-a-duty-to-defend/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Washington Supreme Court Applies the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to Third Party Liability Policy to Find a Duty to Defend"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-applies-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-third-party-liability-policy-to-find-a-duty-to-defend/" addthis:title="Washington Supreme Court Applies the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to Third Party Liability Policy to Find a Duty to Defend"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>The efficient proximate cause rule is one of the more confusing analyses that an insurance company must undertake when investigating certain coverage issues under first party insurance policies. And until now, the efficient proximate cause rule has only been applied to first party insurance policies in Washington. But that has now changed with the Washington Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision in <em>Xia, et al. v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, et al.</em>, Case No. 92436-8 (April 27, 2017). In <em>Xia</em>, the Washington Supreme Court not only ruled that an insurer must consider the efficient proximate cause rule in determining its duty to defend under a CGL policy, but that ProBuilders acted in bad faith by failing to do so, despite no prior precedent for application of the rule in a CGL coverage analysis.</p>\n<p>In <em>Xia</em>, the claimant purchased a new home constructed by Issaquah Highlands 48 LLC (\xe2\x80\x9cIssaquah\xe2\x80\x9d), which was insured under a CGL policy issued by ProBuilders. The claimant fell ill soon after moving in due to inhalation of carbon monoxide, caused by improper installation of an exhaust vent.</p>\n<p>The claimant notified Issaquah about the issue, and Issaquah notified ProBuilders. ProBuilders denied coverage under the pollution exclusion and a townhouse exclusion. The claimant filed a lawsuit, which Issaquah then settled by a stipulated judgment of $2 million with a covenant not to execute and an assignment of rights against ProBuilders. The claimant filed a declaratory judgment action against ProBuilders for breach of contract, bad faith, violation of the Consumer Protection Act and the Insurance Fair Conduct Act.</p>\n<p>At the trial court level, ProBuilders won summary judgment on the townhouse exclusion. Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that the pollution exclusion applied, but not the townhouse exclusion.</p>\n<p>The Washington Supreme Court accepted review to determine whether the pollution exclusion applied to relieve ProBuilders of its duty to defend. The Court held that even though ProBuilders did not err in determining that the plain language of its pollution exclusion applied to the release of carbon monoxide into Xia\xe2\x80\x99s home, \xe2\x80\x9cunder the \xe2\x80\x98eight corners rule\xe2\x80\x99 of reviewing the complaint and the insurance policy, ProBuilders should have noted that a potential issue of efficient proximate cause existed,\xe2\x80\x9d as Xia alleged negligence in her original complaint, <em>i.e.</em> failure to properly install venting for the hot water heater and failure to properly discover the disconnected venting.</p>\n<p>Ultimately, the Court concluded that the efficient proximate cause of the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s loss was a covered peril \xe2\x80\x93 the negligent installation of a hot water heater. Even though ProBuilders correctly applied the language of its pollution exclusion to the release of carbon monoxide into the house, the Court ruled that ProBuilders breached its duty to defend as it failed to consider an alleged covered occurrence that was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law to the claimant with regard to her breach of contract and bad faith claims.</p>\n<p>The application of the efficient proximate cause rule to CGL policies in Washington is troublesome for insurers. The Washington courts have long held in cases involving <em>first party policies</em> that under the efficient proximate cause rule, \xe2\x80\x9c[i]f the initial event, the \xe2\x80\x9cefficient proximate cause,\xe2\x80\x99 is a covered peril, then there is coverage under the policy regardless whether subsequent events within the chain, which may be causes-in-fact of the loss, are excluded by the policy.\xe2\x80\x9d <em>Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co.</em>, 124 Wn.2d 618, 881 P.2d 210 (1994). Also, the efficient proximate cause rule applies only \xe2\x80\x9cwhen two or more perils combine in sequence to cause a loss and a <em>covered</em> peril is the predominant or efficient cause of the loss.\xe2\x80\x9d <em>Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.</em>, 174 Wn.2d 501, 276 P.3d 300 (2012).</p>\n<p>In <em>Xia</em>, the Court noted that like any other covered peril under a general liability policy, an act of negligence may be the efficient proximate cause of a particular loss. \xe2\x80\x9cHaving received valuable premiums for protection against harm caused by negligence, an insurer may not avoid liability merely because an excluded peril resulted from the initial covered peril.\xe2\x80\x9d <em>Xia</em> at *14. The Court stated:</p>\n<p style="padding-left: 30px;">\xe2\x80\xa6it is clear that a polluting occurrence happened when the hot water heater spewed forth toxic levels of carbon monoxide into Xia\xe2\x80\x99s home. However, by applying the efficient proximate cause rule, it becomes equally clear that the ProBuilders policy provided coverage for this loss. The polluting occurrence here happened only after an initial covered occurrence, which was the negligent installation of a hot water heater that typically does not pollute when used as intended.</p>\n<p><em>Xia </em>at *17.</p>\n<p>Justice Madsen took issue with the majority decision in a dissenting opinion, specifically with respect to a finding of bad faith when no other case prior to this decision had ever applied the efficient proximate cause rule to CGL policies. Justice Madsen also disagreed with the majority in extending the application of the efficient proximate cause rule to CGL policies when this Court specifically declined to do so in the earlier case of <em>Quadrant Corp. v. American States Insurance Co.</em>, 154 Wn.2d 165, 110 P.3d 733 (2005).</p>\n<p>The State of Washington unfortunately has been historically unkind to insurers on the duty to defend, and the <em>Xia </em>decision only further cements that reputation.</p>\n<p>If you would like more information on the efficient proximate cause rule in Washington, please feel free to contact Sally S. Kim at <a href="mailto:sallykim@gordonrees.com">sallykim@gordonrees.com</a> or (206) 695-5147.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/bad-faith/" rel="category tag">Bad Faith</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/commercial-general-liability/" rel="category tag">Commercial General Liability</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/duty-to-defend/" rel="category tag">Duty to Defend</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/first-party-policy/" rel="category tag">First Party Policy</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/pollution-exclusion/" rel="category tag">Pollution Exclusion</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-547 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-number-of-occurrences category-trigger">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/minnesota-bankruptcy-court-applies-injury-in-fact-trigger-multiple-policies-for-sexual-molestation-claims/">Minnesota Bankruptcy Court Applies Injury-in-Fact Trigger to Obligate Multiple Policies to Provide Coverage for Sexual Molestation Claims</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/kthompson/" title="Posts by Katharine Thompson" class="author url fn" rel="author">Katharine Thompson</a>  on April 6, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/minnesota-bankruptcy-court-applies-injury-in-fact-trigger-multiple-policies-for-sexual-molestation-claims/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="547 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=547">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/minnesota-bankruptcy-court-applies-injury-in-fact-trigger-multiple-policies-for-sexual-molestation-claims/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Minnesota Bankruptcy Court Applies Injury-in-Fact Trigger to Obligate Multiple Policies to Provide Coverage for Sexual Molestation Claims"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/minnesota-bankruptcy-court-applies-injury-in-fact-trigger-multiple-policies-for-sexual-molestation-claims/" addthis:title="Minnesota Bankruptcy Court Applies Injury-in-Fact Trigger to Obligate Multiple Policies to Provide Coverage for Sexual Molestation Claims"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>In <em>Diocese of Duluth v. Liberty Mutual Group, et al.</em>, case no. 16-05012 (Mar. 30, 2017), the Bankruptcy Court for the District Court for Minnesota was faced with determining trigger and the number of \xe2\x80\x9coccurrences\xe2\x80\x9d related to negligence claims asserted against the Diocese of Duluth by victims of priest sexual abuse. These negligence claims drove the Diocese to file for bankruptcy, and as part of that Bankruptcy proceeding, the Diocese filed an adversary proceeding seeking coverage from five of its insurers. These insurers had issued policies covering several decades. The Court ruled in favor of the Diocese, finding that multiple years of coverage could be triggered and that multiple \xe2\x80\x9coccurrences\xe2\x80\x9d could be found in each policy year as each victim was a separate \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence.\xe2\x80\x9d</p>\n<p>The Diocese successfully argued that each alleged act of abuse constituted a separate \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d under all insurer\xe2\x80\x99s policies, while conceding that the \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d language in the policies (\xe2\x80\x9carising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence\xe2\x80\x9d) consolidated multiple instances of abuse of the same victim by the same priest in the same year into one \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d for that year.</p>\n<p>Most of the insurers argued for the interpretation that there was only one \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93 the ongoing act of negligent supervision by the Diocese in allowing the continuous and repeated exposure of the victims to the abusive priests \xe2\x80\x93 regardless of the number of victims or perpetrators involved. The Continental Insurance Company also argued for one occurrence, or at most, one occurrence per priest or per bishop abuser because all the injuries arose from the Diocese\xe2\x80\x99s decision to allow the abusers access to the children.</p>\n<p>The policies provided coverage for damages for personal injury caused by an \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d and included similar definitions of \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence.\xe2\x80\x9d The Court noted that \xe2\x80\x9cthe word \xe2\x80\x98occurrence\xe2\x80\x99 in occurrence based insurance policies \xe2\x80\x98is one of the least understood and most misunderstood word in today\xe2\x80\x99s insurance language[.]\xe2\x80\x9d</p>\n<p>The Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision focused on Minnesota\xe2\x80\x99s use of the actual injury or injury-in-fact trigger rule, which provides that an \xe2\x80\x9coccurrence\xe2\x80\x9d take place at the time the complaining party as actually injured, not when the wrongful act was committed. Minnesota courts have also held that \xe2\x80\x9can injury can occur even though the injury is not \xe2\x80\x98diagnosable,\xe2\x80\x99 \xe2\x80\x98compensable\xe2\x80\x99 or manifest during the policy period as long as it can be determined, even retroactively, that some injury did occur during the policy period.\xe2\x80\x9d</p>\n<p>Considering these precedents, the Court noted that the underlying facts of the cases were not in dispute \xe2\x80\x93 numerous victims were abused by several different priests. As the sexual abuse was what caused the victims damage, \xe2\x80\x9cunder the actual-injury rule, the occurrence is the time when the victims were sexually abused by the priests. \xe2\x80\x9c The Court further determined that the number of occurrences could be both per victim and per priest \xe2\x80\x93 \xe2\x80\x9cThere are separate occurrences for each separate sexual abuse for each victim and each priest. The victims each suffered separate abuse and it is this occurrence that triggers an insurance policy that is at risk at that time.\xe2\x80\x9d The Court also clarified if a victim was injured by two priests during one policy period, that would be two occurrences, although if injured repeatedly by the same priest during one policy period, that would be one occurrence.</p>\n<p>It\xe2\x80\x99s not evident from the decision what impact the Court\xe2\x80\x99s decision had on each insurer\xe2\x80\x99s coverage obligations, but certainly determining that multiple policies might be triggered and that there might be multiple occurrences in each year broadened the obligation significantly from what the insurers were arguing for.</p>\n<p>A Pennsylvania court also recently faced this issue in connection with the Sandusky scandal at Penn State University, but came to the opposite conclusion while discussing many of the same concerns. Pennsylvania utilizes the \xe2\x80\x9cmanifestation\xe2\x80\x9d trigger outside of the asbestos context, and while this trigger led to a similar conclusion as to when the bodily injury first occurred, the court did not permit Penn State to trigger multiple policy periods for subsequent acts of abuse against the same victim. In <em>Pa. State Univ. v. Pa. Manufacturers\xe2\x80\x99 Ass\xe2\x80\x99n Ins. Co.</em>, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 158 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. May 4, 2016), the court noted that:</p>\n<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Unlike environmental pollution or asbestos damage, which can remain hidden for many years before it manifests, the physical violation (bodily injury) arising from child sexual abuse is experienced immediately by the victim, although the harm often continues to be felt long thereafter. To the extent that PSU\xe2\x80\x99s negligence enabled Sandusky to abuse his victims, such bodily injury manifested when the first abuse of each victim occurred.</p>\n<p>The court also followed prior Pennsylvania Superior Court authority which held that each victim constitutes only one occurrence, no matter how many separate instances of sexual abuse took place. <em>General Accident Ins. Co. v. Allen</em>, 708 A.2d 828, 834-835 (Pa. Super. 1998) (one occurrence for each child where three children were sexually abused from 1986 to 1988). Pennsylvania does not appear to have addressed a situation with multiple abusers.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately this will likely continue to be an area to watch as courts around the country continue to grapple with trigger and number of occurrences in these sexual abuse cases.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/number-of-occurrences/" rel="category tag">Number of Occurrences</a>, <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/trigger/" rel="category tag">Trigger</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class="post-542 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-duty-to-defend">\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="entry">\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/ninth-circuit-clarifies-excess-insurers-options-under-for-proposed-settlements-that-invades-excess-layer-of-coverage/">Ninth Circuit Clarifies Excess Insurer\xe2\x80\x99s Options Under For Proposed Settlements That Invades Excess Layer Of Coverage</a></h2>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class="post-info">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="time">By  <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/jderringer/" title="Posts by Jordan Derringer" class="author url fn" rel="author">Jordan Derringer</a> and <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/author/tlindell/" title="Posts by Timothy Lindell" class="author url fn" rel="author">Timothy Lindell</a>  on March 31, 2017</span><br>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="post-comments"><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/ninth-circuit-clarifies-excess-insurers-options-under-for-proposed-settlements-that-invades-excess-layer-of-coverage/#respond"><span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="542 http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?p=542">Leave a comment</span></a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons above --><div class=\'sfsibeforpstwpr\' style=\'\'><div class=\'sfsi_plus_Sicons left\' style=\'float:left\'><div style=\'display: inline-block;margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0; vertical-align: middle;width: auto;\'><span></span></div><div class=\'sf_addthis\'  style=\'display: inline-block;vertical-align: middle;width: auto;margin-top: 6px;\'> <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\tvar addthis_config = {\r\n\t\t\t url: "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/ninth-circuit-clarifies-excess-insurers-options-under-for-proposed-settlements-that-invades-excess-layer-of-coverage/",\r\n\t\t\t title: "Ninth Circuit Clarifies Excess Insurer\xe2\x80\x99s Options Under For Proposed Settlements That Invades Excess Layer Of Coverage"\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t</script><div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_20x20_style" addthis:url="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/ninth-circuit-clarifies-excess-insurers-options-under-for-proposed-settlements-that-invades-excess-layer-of-coverage/" addthis:title="Ninth Circuit Clarifies Excess Insurer\xe2\x80\x99s Options Under For Proposed Settlements That Invades Excess Layer Of Coverage"><a class="addthis_button_compact " href="#">  <img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/images/sharebtn.png"  border="0" alt="Share" /></a></div></div></div></div><p>A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified an excess insurer\xe2\x80\x99s options under California law when it is presented with a proposed settlement that invades its excess layer and has been approved by the insured and primary insurer. <em>See </em>\xc2\xa0<em>Teleflex Medical Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh</em>,<em> PA</em>, 2017 U.S.App.LEXIS 4996 (9th Cir. March 21, 2017). In <em>Teleflex</em>, the court applied the rule set forth in <em>Diamond Heights Homeowners Ass\xe2\x80\x99n v. Nat\xe2\x80\x99l Am. Ins. Co. </em>(1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 563 (\xe2\x80\x9c<em>Diamond Heights</em>\xe2\x80\x9d) stating that the excess insurer can: (1) approve the settlement; (2) reject the settlement and assume the defense of the insured; or (3) reject the settlement, decline the defense, and face a potential lawsuit by the insured seeking contribution.</p>\n<p>In <em>Teleflex</em>, LMA became involved in a lawsuit with a competitor. LMA filed suit seeking recovery of damages for patent infringement and the competitor filed counterclaims for trade disparagement and false advertising. After several years of litigation, the parties agreed to settle their respective claims. As part of the settlement, LMA agreed to pay $4.75 million for the disparagement claims and LMA\xe2\x80\x99s competitor agreed to pay $8.75 million for the patent claims. The settlement was contingent upon LMA obtaining approval and funding from its primary and excess insurers.</p>\n<p>LMA\xe2\x80\x99s primary carrier agreed to the settlement, but its excess insurer, National Union requested additional information which was provided by LMA, along with a demand that National Union could accept the settlement, reject the settlement and take over the defense, or reject the settlement, refuse to defend, and face a reimbursement claim. National Union ultimately rejected the settlement without offering to take over the defense.</p>\n<p>LMA then brought suit against National Union for breach of contract and bad faith, where a jury awarded LMA damages for both. On appeal, National Union argued, among other things, that the district court erred in applying the rule articulated in <em>Diamond Heights, </em>asserting that it had effectively been overruled by <em>Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch.</em> (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1. National Union argued that under <em>Waller</em>, an insurer can only waive a policy provision through an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Accordingly, National Union asserted that LMA\xe2\x80\x99s claims failed as matter of law because the \xe2\x80\x9cno voluntary payments\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cno action\xe2\x80\x9d clauses gave National Union the absolute right to reject the settlement. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit held that <em>Waller</em> did not mention <em>Diamond Heights</em> and reasoned that it simply reiterated general waiver principles that existed prior to and were not in conflict with <em>Diamond Heights</em>. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that regardless of <em>Diamond Heights</em> use of the term \xe2\x80\x9cwaiver\xe2\x80\x9d its rule is really about an insurer\xe2\x80\x99s breach of its obligations under the policy and/or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing \xe2\x80\x93 not the waiver or expansion of a policy provision addressed by the <em>Waller </em>court.</p>\n<p>Of note, the Ninth Circuit also expressed skepticism regarding the application of the \xe2\x80\x9cgenuine dispute doctrine\xe2\x80\x9d to third party claims and held that an insurer was not entitled to a specific jury instruction regarding that defense. The court also affirmed the district court\xe2\x80\x99s ruling that an insured was not entitled to <em>Brandt</em> fees associated solely to the insured\xe2\x80\x99s bad faith and related punitive damages claims.</p>\n<p>Based upon this decision, excess insurers should be cognizant of the pitfalls of withholding consents to settlements and should ensure that they have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to analyze the reasonableness of the settlement and adequate time to consider whether to participate or undertake the defense of the insured.</p>\n<!-- AddThis Sharing Buttons below --><div class="clear"></div>\n\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class="post-meta">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class="categories">Filed under <a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/category/duty-to-defend/" rel="category tag">Duty to Defend</a></span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</p>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\t</div>\n\n\t\t\n\t\t<div class="navlink">\n\t\t\t<div class="nav-previous"><p><a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/page/2/" ><span class="meta-nav">&larr;</span> Older posts</a></p></div>\n\t\t\t<div class="nav-next"><p></p></div>\n\t\t</div>\n\n\t</div>\n\n<div id="sidebar">\n\n\t<div id="text-4" class="widget widget_text">\t\t\t<div class="textwidget"></div>\n\t\t</div><div id="feedburneremailwidget-2" class="widget FeedburnerEmailWidget"><h4>Subscribe to this blog by email</h4><form id="feedburner_email_widget_sbef" action="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify" method="post" onsubmit="window.open(\'http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=grinsurancecoveragelawblog\', \'popupwindow\', \'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520\');return true;" target="popupwindow"><input id="feedburner_email_widget_sbef_email" name="email" type="text" /><input type="hidden" value="grinsurancecoveragelawblog" name="uri"/><input type="hidden" value="en_US" name="loc"/><input id="feedburner_email_widget_sbef_submit" type="submit" value="SUBMIT" /></form></div><div id="linkcat-6" class="widget widget_mylinkorder"><h4>Stay Connected</h4>\n\t<ul class=\'xoxo blogroll\'>\n<li><a href="https://twitter.com/gordonreesllp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/images/icon-twitter.png"  alt="Follow Us on Twitter"  /> Follow Us on Twitter</a></li>\n<li><a href="/feed" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/images/icon-rss.png"  alt="Subscribe to this blog via RSS"  /> Subscribe to this blog via RSS</a></li>\n<li><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/gordon-and-rees-llp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/themes/gordonrees/images/icon-linkedin.png"  alt="View Our LinkedIn Profile"  /> View Our LinkedIn Profile</a></li>\n\n\t</ul>\n</div>\n<div id="linkcat-4" class="widget widget_mylinkorder"><h4>Editors</h4>\n\t<ul class=\'xoxo blogroll\'>\n<li><a href="http://www.gordonrees.com/lawyers/a/arthur-schwartz" target="_blank">Arthur Schwartz</a></li>\n<li><a href="http://www.gordonrees.com/lawyers/j/joseph-a-arnold" target="_blank">Joseph Arnold</a></li>\n<li><a href="http://www.gordonrees.com/lawyers/m/matthew-s-foy" target="_blank">Matthew Foy</a></li>\n\n\t</ul>\n</div>\n<div id="search-2" class="widget widget_search"><form role="search" method="get" id="searchform" class="searchform" action="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/">\n\t\t\t\t<div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<label class="screen-reader-text" for="s">Search for:</label>\n\t\t\t\t\t<input type="text" value="" name="s" id="s" />\n\t\t\t\t\t<input type="submit" id="searchsubmit" value="Search" />\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\t\t\t</form></div><div id="categories-2" class="widget widget_categories"><h4>Categories</h4><label class="screen-reader-text" for="cat">Categories</label><select  name=\'cat\' id=\'cat\' class=\'postform\' >\n\t<option value=\'-1\'>Select Category</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="29">Allocation</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="7">Appellate</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="83">Appraisal</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="22">Assault and Battery Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="92">Attorney-Client Privilege</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="107">Attorneys\xe2\x80\x99 Fees</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="26">Auto</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="53">Bad Faith</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="108">Breach of Contract</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="65">California Insurance Code</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="27">California Insurance Regulations</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="73">Claims Made Policy</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="135">Class Action</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="115">Collapse</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="89">Commercial General Liability</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="122">Consent to Assignment</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="123">Consent to Settle</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="121">Consent to Settle/Unreasonable Settlements</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="126">Construction Defect</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="102">Contaminated Products Insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="143">Contribution</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="21">Contribution Actions</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="131">Cost-Shifting</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="124">Covenant Judgments</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="111">Cyberinsurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="19">Data Breach</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="117">Declaratory Judgment Actions</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="132">Discovery</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="120">Duty to Cooperate</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="58">Duty to Defend</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="79">Electronic Data</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="69">Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Liability</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="75">Employment-Related Practices Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="110">Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="113">Executive and Organization Liability Policy</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="96">Exhaustion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="157">Fair Debt Collection Practices Act</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="158">FDCPA</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="90">First Party Policy</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="94">Flood insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="129">Food Contamination</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="125">Garnishment Proceeding</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="10">General Liability</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="59">Governmental Agency Actions</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="78">HIPAA-Protected Information</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="23">Independent Counsel</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="20">Injunctive Relief Not Covered Damages</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="31">Insolvencies</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="153">Insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="106">Intellectual Property Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="64">Late Disclaimer Statute</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="72">Late Notice</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="30">Life Insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="82">Loss of Use</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="140">Negligence</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="99">Non-Owned Aircraft Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="156">Number of Occurrences</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="52">Other Insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="130">Personal and Advertising Injury</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="127">Policy Renewal</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="138">Pollution Exclusion</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="61">Product Disparagement</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="101">Product Recall Insurance</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="25">Professional Liability</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="77">Property Damage</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="12">Property Insurance Coverage</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="17">Punitive Damages</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="98">Reformation</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="86">Replacement Cost Value</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="28">Rescission</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="63">Reservation of Rights</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="105">Right of Publicity</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="15">Right to Repair Act</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="18">Self Insured Retentions</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="116">Separation of Insureds</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="118">Statute of Limitations</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="149">Subrogation</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="136">TCPA</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="155">Trigger</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="70">Trigger of Coverage</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="1">Uncategorized</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="91">Unfair Insurance Practices</option>\n\t<option class="level-0" value="145">Voluntary Payments</option>\n</select>\n\n<script type=\'text/javascript\'>\n/* <![CDATA[ */\n(function() {\n\tvar dropdown = document.getElementById( "cat" );\n\tfunction onCatChange() {\n\t\tif ( dropdown.options[ dropdown.selectedIndex ].value > 0 ) {\n\t\t\tlocation.href = "http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/?cat=" + dropdown.options[ dropdown.selectedIndex ].value;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tdropdown.onchange = onCatChange;\n})();\n/* ]]> */\n</script>\n\n</div><div id="archives-2" class="widget widget_archive"><h4>Archives</h4>\t\t<label class="screen-reader-text" for="archives-dropdown-2">Archives</label>\n\t\t<select id="archives-dropdown-2" name="archive-dropdown" onchange=\'document.location.href=this.options[this.selectedIndex].value;\'>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<option value="">Select Month</option>\n\t\t\t\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/09/\'> September 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/08/\'> August 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/07/\'> July 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/06/\'> June 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/05/\'> May 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/04/\'> April 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/03/\'> March 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/02/\'> February 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2017/01/\'> January 2017 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/12/\'> December 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/11/\'> November 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/10/\'> October 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/09/\'> September 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/08/\'> August 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/07/\'> July 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/06/\'> June 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/05/\'> May 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/04/\'> April 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/03/\'> March 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/02/\'> February 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2016/01/\'> January 2016 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/12/\'> December 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/11/\'> November 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/10/\'> October 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/09/\'> September 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/08/\'> August 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/07/\'> July 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/06/\'> June 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/05/\'> May 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/04/\'> April 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/03/\'> March 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/02/\'> February 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2015/01/\'> January 2015 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/12/\'> December 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/11/\'> November 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/10/\'> October 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/09/\'> September 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/08/\'> August 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/07/\'> July 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/06/\'> June 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/05/\'> May 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/04/\'> April 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/03/\'> March 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2014/02/\'> February 2014 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2013/12/\'> December 2013 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2013/11/\'> November 2013 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2013/10/\'> October 2013 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2013/09/\'> September 2013 </option>\n\t<option value=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/2013/01/\'> January 2013 </option>\n\n\t\t</select>\n\t\t</div>\t\t<div id="recent-posts-2" class="widget widget_recent_entries">\t\t<h4>Recent Posts</h4>\t\t<ul>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/">Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/">Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/">Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/">The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/">California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t</ul>\n\t\t</div>\t\t\n</div>\n</div>\n\n</div>\n<div id="footer-widgeted">\n    <div class="footer-widgeted-1">\n        <div id="text-2" class="widget widget_text"><h4>Address</h4>\t\t\t<div class="textwidget">Gordon & Rees<br/>\r\nSan Francisco<br/>\r\n275 Battery Street<br/>\r\nSan Francisco, CA 94111<br/>\r\nPhone: 415.986.5900<br/>\r\nFax: 415.986.8054<br/>\r\n<a href="http://www.grsm.com"><font color="#88AEDD">www.grsm.com</font></a>\r\n</div>\n\t\t</div>    </div>\n    <div class="footer-widgeted-2">\n        <div id="text-3" class="widget widget_text"><h4>About Gordon &#038; Rees</h4>\t\t\t<div class="textwidget">Gordon & Rees is a national litigation and business transactions firm with more than 700 attorneys in 45 offices across 28 states. We deliver maximum value to our clients by combining the resources, size, and scale of a full-service national firm with the responsiveness, flexibility, and local knowledge of a regional firm.</div>\n\t\t</div>    </div>\n    <div class="footer-widgeted-3">\n        \t\t<div id="recent-posts-3" class="widget widget_recent_entries">\t\t<h4>Recent Posts</h4>\t\t<ul>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/">Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/insurance-coverage-for-malicious-prosecution-claims-in-georgia/">Insurance Coverage for Malicious Prosecution Claims in Georgia</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/washington-supreme-court-denies-reconsideration-of-its-decision-to-apply-the-efficient-proximate-cause-rule-to-a-third-party-liability-policy/">Washington Supreme Court Denies Reconsideration of Its Decision to Apply the Efficient Proximate Cause Rule to a Third-Party Liability Policy</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/the-ninth-circuit-resolves-split-in-authority-holds-that-only-insureds-under-first-party-policies-can-bring-claims-under-washingtons-ifca/">The Ninth Circuit Resolves Split in Authority, Holds that Only Insureds Under First-Party Policies Can Bring Claims Under Washington\xe2\x80\x99s IFCA</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t<li>\n\t\t\t\t<a href="http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/california-appeals-court-rules-that-insurer-not-entitled-to-rescind-policy-based-on-material-misrepresentation-due-to-ambiguity-of-application-questions/">California Appeals Court Rules that Insurer Not Entitled to Rescind Policy Based on Material Misrepresentation Due to Ambiguity of Application Questions</a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t</ul>\n\t\t</div>\t\t    </div>\n    <div class="footer-widgeted-4">\n            </div>\n</div>\n<div id="footer">\n\t<div class="footerleft">\n\t\t<span style="color:white;nowrap;font-size: 11px;line-height: 15px;">Copyright &copy; 2017, Gordon &amp; Rees LLP. All Rights Reserved.</span>\n    </div>\n    <div class="footerright">\n\t\t<span style="color:white;nowrap;font-size: 11px;line-height: 20px;color: #666666;font-weight: bold;text-decoration: none;"><a href="privacy-policy">PRIVACY POLICY</a>  |  <a href="disclaimer">DISCLAIMER</a></span>\n    </div>\n</div>\n        <script type="text/javascript">\n        // <![CDATA[\n        var disqus_shortname = \'insurancecoveragelawblog\';\n        (function () {\n            var nodes = document.getElementsByTagName(\'span\');\n            for (var i = 0, url; i < nodes.length; i++) {\n                if (nodes[i].className.indexOf(\'dsq-postid\') != -1) {\n                    nodes[i].parentNode.setAttribute(\'data-disqus-identifier\', nodes[i].getAttribute(\'data-dsqidentifier\'));\n                    url = nodes[i].parentNode.href.split(\'#\', 1);\n                    if (url.length == 1) { url = url[0]; }\n                    else { url = url[1]; }\n                    nodes[i].parentNode.href = url + \'#disqus_thread\';\n                }\n            }\n            var s = document.createElement(\'script\');\n            s.async = true;\n            s.type = \'text/javascript\';\n            s.src = \'//\' + disqus_shortname + \'.disqus.com/count.js\';\n            (document.getElementsByTagName(\'HEAD\')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName(\'BODY\')[0]).appendChild(s);\n        }());\n        // ]]>\n        </script>\n        \t\t<!--facebook like and share js -->                   \r\n\t\t<div id="fb-root"></div>\r\n\t\t<script>(function(d, s, id) {\r\n\t\t  var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\r\n\t\t  if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\r\n\t\t  js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\r\n\t\t  js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.5";\r\n\t\t  fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\r\n\t\t}(document, \'script\', \'facebook-jssdk\'));</script>\r\n\t\t\t<!--google share and  like and e js -->\r\n\t\t<script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\t\twindow.___gcfg = {\r\n\t\t\t  lang: \'en_US\'\r\n\t\t\t};\r\n\t\t\t(function() {\r\n\t\t\t\tvar po = document.createElement(\'script\'); po.type = \'text/javascript\'; po.async = true;\r\n\t\t\t\tpo.src = \'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js\';\r\n\t\t\t\tvar s = document.getElementsByTagName(\'script\')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s);\r\n\t\t\t})();\r\n\t\t</script>\r\n\t\r\n        <!-- google share -->\r\n        <script type="text/javascript">\r\n            (function() {\r\n                var po = document.createElement(\'script\'); po.type = \'text/javascript\'; po.async = true;\r\n                po.src = \'https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js\';\r\n                var s = document.getElementsByTagName(\'script\')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s);\r\n            })();\r\n        </script>\r\n        \t\r\n       <!-- linkedIn share and  follow js -->\r\n\t   \r\n        <script src="//platform.linkedin.com/in.js" type="text/javascript">lang: en_US</script>\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t<!-- Addthis js -->\r\n        <script type="text/javascript" src="https://s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-558ac14e7f79bff7"></script>\r\n        <script type="text/javascript">\r\n\t\t\tvar addthis_config = {  ui_click: true  };\r\n\t\t</script>\r\n\t\t\t<!-- twitter JS End -->\r\n\t\t<script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");</script>\t\r\n\t     \t<script>\r\n\t    jQuery( document ).scroll(function( $ )\r\n\t\t{\r\n\t    \tvar y = jQuery(this).scrollTop();\r\n\t      \tif (/Android|webOS|iPhone|iPad|iPod|BlackBerry|IEMobile|Opera Mini/i.test(navigator.userAgent))\r\n\t\t\t{\t \r\n\t       \t\tif(jQuery(window).scrollTop() + jQuery(window).height() >= jQuery(document).height()-100)\r\n\t\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\t  jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').css({\'z-index\':\'9996\',opacity:1,top:jQuery(window).scrollTop()+"px",position:"absolute"});\r\n\t\t\t\t  jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').fadeIn(200);\r\n\t\t\t\t  jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_FrntInner\').fadeIn(200);\r\n\t       \t\t}\r\n\t       \t\telse\r\n\t\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\t   jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').fadeOut();\r\n\t\t\t\t   jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_FrntInner\').fadeOut();\r\n \t\t\t    }\r\n\t    \t}\r\n\t  \t\telse\r\n\t\t\t{\r\n\t       \t\tif(jQuery(window).scrollTop() + jQuery(window).height() >= jQuery(document).height()-3)\r\n\t\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t        jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').css({\'z-index\':\'9996\',opacity:1,top:jQuery(window).scrollTop()+200+"px",position:"absolute"});\r\n\t        \t\tjQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').fadeIn(200);\r\n\t\t\t\t\tjQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_FrntInner\').fadeIn(200);\r\n\t    \t\t}\r\n\t  \t\t\telse\r\n\t\t\t\t{\r\n\t\t\t\t    jQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_outr_div\').fadeOut();\r\n\t      \t\t\tjQuery(\'.sfsi_plus_FrntInner\').fadeOut();\r\n\t       \t\t}\r\n\t \t\t} \r\n\t\t});\r\n     </script>\r\n     <script data-cfasync="false" type="text/javascript">\nvar addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true,"ui_atversion":300,"ignore_server_config":true};\nvar addthis_share = {};\n</script>\n                <!-- AddThis Settings Begin -->\n                <script data-cfasync="false" type="text/javascript">\n                    var addthis_product = "wpp-5.3.1";\n                    var wp_product_version = "wpp-5.3.1";\n                    var wp_blog_version = "4.7.2";\n                    var addthis_plugin_info = {"info_status":"enabled","cms_name":"WordPress","cms_version":"4.7.2","plugin_name":"Share Buttons by AddThis","plugin_version":"5.3.1","anonymous_profile_id":"wp-286225307693cadf9b1990584bef8cc7","plugin_mode":"WordPress","select_prefs":{"addthis_per_post_enabled":true,"addthis_above_enabled":false,"addthis_below_enabled":false,"addthis_sidebar_enabled":false,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_enabled":false,"addthis_above_showon_home":true,"addthis_above_showon_posts":true,"addthis_above_showon_pages":true,"addthis_above_showon_archives":true,"addthis_above_showon_categories":true,"addthis_above_showon_excerpts":true,"addthis_below_showon_home":true,"addthis_below_showon_posts":true,"addthis_below_showon_pages":true,"addthis_below_showon_archives":true,"addthis_below_showon_categories":true,"addthis_below_showon_excerpts":true,"addthis_sidebar_showon_home":true,"addthis_sidebar_showon_posts":true,"addthis_sidebar_showon_pages":true,"addthis_sidebar_showon_archives":true,"addthis_sidebar_showon_categories":true,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_showon_home":true,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_showon_posts":true,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_showon_pages":true,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_showon_archives":true,"addthis_mobile_toolbar_showon_categories":true,"sharing_enabled_on_post_via_metabox":true},"page_info":{"template":"home","post_type":""}};\n                    if (typeof(addthis_config) == "undefined") {\n                        var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true,"ui_atversion":300,"ignore_server_config":true};\n                    }\n                    if (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined") {\n                        var addthis_share = {};\n                    }\n                    if (typeof(addthis_layers) == "undefined") {\n                        var addthis_layers = {};\n                    }\n                </script>\n                <script\n                    data-cfasync="false"\n                    type="text/javascript"\n                    src="//s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=wp-286225307693cadf9b1990584bef8cc7 "\n                    async="async"\n                >\n                </script>\n                <script data-cfasync="false" type="text/javascript">\n                    (function() {\n                        var at_interval = setInterval(function () {\n                            if(window.addthis) {\n                                clearInterval(at_interval);\n                                addthis.layers(addthis_layers);\n                            }\n                        },1000)\n                    }());\n                </script>\n                <link rel=\'stylesheet\' id=\'addthis_output-css\'  href=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/addthis/css/output.css?ver=4.7.2\' type=\'text/css\' media=\'all\' />\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui/core.min.js?ver=1.11.4\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/js/shuffle/modernizr.custom.min.js?ver=4.7.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/js/shuffle/jquery.shuffle.min.js?ver=4.7.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/js/shuffle/random-shuffle-min.js?ver=4.7.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\'>\n/* <![CDATA[ */\nvar ajax_object = {"ajax_url":"http:\\/\\/www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com\\/wp-admin\\/admin-ajax.php","plugin_url":"http:\\/\\/www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com\\/wp-content\\/plugins\\/ultimate-social-media-plus\\/"};\n/* ]]> */\n</script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-plus/js/custom.js?ver=4.7.2\'></script>\n<script type=\'text/javascript\' src=\'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js?ver=4.7.2\'></script>\n<!--wp_footer-->\n</body>\n</html>'

Two Data Points, One Match


Parse the site's contents

In [97]:
res_1 = re.search(b"entry-title.*href=\"(.*)\" .*>(.*)</a",p_1)
output_1 = res_1.group(1).decode('UTF-8')
print(output_1)
output_2 = res_1.group(2).decode('UTF-8')
print(output_2)
res_2 = re.search(b"url:\s\"(.*)\",\s*title: \"(.*)\"",p_2)
output_3 = res_2.group(1).decode('UTF-8')
print(output_3)
output_4 = res_2.group(2).decode('UTF-8')
print(output_4)
http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/supreme-court-case-united-states-vs-south-eastern-underwriters-association-explained/
The Supreme Court Case: United States vs South Eastern Underwriters Association Explained
http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/
Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court
In [98]:
print(output_4[0:110])
Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Le

Post to Twitter and Save to Google (Two Data Point, One Match)

In [99]:
if (res_1 and ((worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[1]) != output_1
          and (worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[2]) != output_2)
           or ((worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[3]) != output_3
          and (worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[4]) != output_4)):
    # same as above but now comparing two values
    
    if ((worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[1]) != output_1
          and (worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[2]) != output_2):
        try:
            # Post to Twitter.
            status = api.PostUpdate('%s . . . %s'%(output_2[0:108],output_1))
            print(status.text)
        except TwitterError:
            # Post to Twitter.
            status = api.PostUpdate('%s . . . %s'%(output_2[0:108],output_1))
            print(status.text)

    if ((worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[3]) != output_3
          and (worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count)[4]) != output_4):
        try:
            # Post to Twitter.
            status = api.PostUpdate('%s . . . %s'%(output_4[0:108],output_3))
            print(status.text)
        except TwitterError:
            # Post to Twitter.
            status = api.PostUpdate('%s . . . %s'%(output_4[0:108],output_3))
            print(status.text)


    # Save to Google only after Tweeting
    worksheet.append_row([now,output_1,output_2,output_3,output_4])
The Supreme Court Case: United States vs South Eastern Underwriters Association Explained . . . https://t.co/ZfY8BpuzUH
Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still  . . . https://t.co/cgrDKAwW5c
In [100]:
print(worksheet.row_values(worksheet.row_count))
#############################
# DELETE CELL AFTER TESTING
#############################
['2017-10-23 17:47:05', 'http://www.insurancelitigationregulatorylaw.com/supreme-court-case-united-states-vs-south-eastern-underwriters-association-explained/', 'The Supreme Court Case: United States vs South Eastern Underwriters Association Explained', 'http://www.grinsurancecoveragelawblog.com/winning-arbitration-battle-in-the-connecticut-supreme-court-regarding-historic-home-restoration-costs-still-leaves-insurer-defending-legal-war-in-state-trial-court/', 'Winning Arbitration Battle in the Connecticut Supreme Court Regarding Historic Home Restoration Costs Still Leaves Insurer Defending Legal War in State Trial Court']
In [ ]: