By Thomas R. Newman
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implied by law in every liability insurance policy requires the insurer to concern itself with the interests and welfare of the insured as well as its own interests and welfare, and in so doing “the insurer at the very least must itself consider and determine whether or not a settlement offer is in the best interest of the insured.” Garner v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 31 Cal. App. 3d 843, 847-848, 107 Cal. Rptr. 604, 607 (3d Dist 1973). If it is, as where liability is clear and the injuries or damages are likely to result in a judgment in excess of the policy limits, some courts have held that the insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations. Goheagan v. American Vehicle Ins. Co., 107 So. 3d 433, 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1012); Noonan v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2010)(Florida law); SRM, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 798 F.3d 1322, 1323 (10th Cir. 2015)(Oklahoma law)(“a primary insurer owes its insured a duty to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant if the insured’s liability to the claimant is clear and the insured likely will be held liable for more than its insurance will cover”).
Continue reading “Insurer’s Duty to Initiate Settlement Discussion”
By Philip R. Matthews
The New York Court of Appeal on Tuesday, May 3, held that the Consolidated Edison pro rata allocation rule does not apply where the policies have prior insurance and non-cumulation clauses. The Court held that the pro rata rule in Consolidated Edison depends on policy language and that the prior insurance and non-cumulation clause is inconsistent with a pro rata approach. However, the Court did say that prior insurance and non-cumulation clauses would be enforced as anti-stacking clauses. Such enforcement could limit the amount of coverage available to a policyholder. The Court of Appeal also held that under the circumstances of the case, horizontal exhaustion would not apply.
To view this decision, please visit the New York Courts website.
By Sheila Raftery Wiggins
The Supreme Court of New Jersey – the highest court in New Jersey – held that the failure to comply with the notice provisions of the claims-made policy constitutes a breach of the policy, permitting the insurer to decline coverage to a sophisticated insured without demonstrating prejudice to the insurer caused by the delay.
We previously reported on where the Appellate Division ruled, in Templo Fuente de Vida Corp. and Fuente Properties, Inc., that for a claims-made policy, the policy holder is to provide notice of a claim: (1) during the same policy period in which the policyholder received the claim and (2) “as soon as practicable.” Otherwise, the claim may be denied because of late notice. The New Jersey Appellate Division determined that six months or more is not “as soon as practicable.” Continue reading “No Prejudice in New Jersey Needed to Bar Coverage to Sophisticated Insured for Delay in Notice Under Claims-Made Policy”
For a claims-made policy, the policy holder is to provide notice of a claim: (1) during the same policy period in which the policyholder received the claim and (2) “as soon as practicable.” Otherwise, the claim may be denied because of late notice. New Jersey has determined that six months or more is not “as soon as practicable.”
Holding: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held in Templo Fuente de Vida Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., that: (1) notice of a claim was not provided “as soon as practicable” when sent six months after service on the insured of the underlying complaint and (2) an insurer on a claims-made policy does not have to show that it was prejudiced by the late notice.
Continue reading “Six-Month Delay Bars Coverage in NJ Under Claims-Made Policy”
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided on April 2, 2013 that an Indiana law firm was not entitled to coverage for a claim made and reported in a second policy period where the insured reasonably had knowledge that a claim might be made during the first policy period. Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co., No. 12-1579, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6558 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2013). As the Court noted (in affirming a District Court decision to the same effect), “a reasonable attorney would have recognized that his failure [to deliver a contract during the first policy period] . . .was an omission that could reasonably be expected to be the basis of a malpractice claim.” Continue reading “7th Circuit Upholds Prior Knowledge Provision in Claims-Made Policy”