CLM’s Claims Counsel Committee recently held a webinar entitled “Developments in Bad-Faith Claims and Litigation,” which discussed developments in case law as it relates to standards for bad-faith claims against insurance companies. Below are a few takeaways from the presentation.
12:00:00pm
THE SPEAKERS
Seth Friedman, Partner, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
Kaisa Chase, Coverage Counsel Manager, Claims Legal Group, Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions
12:05:55pm
Kaisa Chase
“I think [Puritan Ins. Co. v. Canadian Univ. Ins. Co.] is a really good example of a case where, if you are representing an excess carrier, to be aware of how the doctrine of equitable subrogation or equitable contribution works in that jurisdiction.”
12:06:08pm
Kaisa Chase
“In [Puritan], the insured was fully apprised of the risk and bought into the litigation plan and understood the risk going into trial...so it’s [a] good illustration of getting the insured’s buy-in...if you’re representing the primary carrier and want to make sure there’s no ambiguity about the insured’s consent.”
12:06:55pm
Seth Friedman
“While many jurisdictions require a demand within limits, there are places where you could have potential liability even without a demand.”
12:08:00pm
Seth Friedman
“In the Harvey v. GEICO case, there was a $100,000 policy, and the claim was worth well in excess of that, and the claimant wanted to talk to the insured about what other assets they might have. The insurance company didn’t do a good job connecting the claimant’s attorney with the insured…it came out...that the claimant would have settled for the policy limits had they known the insured didn’t really have any other assets.”
12:09:09pm
Kaisa Chase
“Harvey discussed the fact that the company had a written policy in place of not disclosing limits in response to requests—and I thought that was a bit unique from that case. But it raises a good point...to confirm that you understand each state’s requirements, including whether the insured’s consent is required, and the timing for the disclosure requirement.”
12:10:15pm
Seth Friedman
“I would point out Georgia is one of the states where there is a statutory scheme about disclosure of policy limits pre-suit, and that’s used often by claimants—they send that to the insurance company or insured, and turn around and send their policy limits demand immediately after that, because they’re statutorily entitled to find out that information.”
12:11:53pm
Seth Friedman
“The claimant’s conduct is generally a secondary concern because the focus is on what the insurer did and its obligations and its response.”
12:16:00pm
Kaisa Chase
“In this situation, where you know you have insufficient limits to address the exposure, or there are multiple claimants, you just need to evaluate what is appropriate in that jurisdiction. Is inter-pleader appropriate? Timely communicating with the insured in terms of demonstrating the carrier’s willingness to resolve is another strategy that can be considered.”