Coalitions are emerging as a key strategy for managing complex claims and preventing excessive indemnity payouts, according to a panel of experts at CLM’s 2026 Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida last month. The general session on Friday, March 27, entitled, “Collaborating Across the Excess Insurance Tower,” included moderator Beth Fitch, Righi Fitch Law Group; Geoff Borger, Nationwide Insurance Group; Michael Cortese, Westfield Specialty; Mitchell Dane-Henry, Sprouts Farmers Market; and Ted Schaer, Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy.
A fundamental problem causing excessive indemnity payouts is poor communication and lack of coordination among primary carriers, excess carriers, defense counsel, and insureds throughout the insurance tower, the panelists said. They added that creating structured coalitions among defense counsel and carriers can improve outcomes by fostering collaboration, sharing knowledge, and presenting a unified front.
Borger noted that the plaintiff’s bar is sophisticated and well-organized, and that there is much defense counsel can learn from them. He explained that, in pre-tort-reform Florida, “there was something not working with the way that we were handling our litigation. I had a lot of firms on my panel, but only one firm was really being utilized, and I was having some issues with that firm. So, we [worked] with my leader in that state…And what we came up with…is taking a page out of the plaintiff's bar handbook to be organized.” The theme, he explained, was to focus efforts in the state on coming up with an “A-Team” of panel firms.
His company identified an A-Team list of five panel firms in Florida and funneled the majority of work to them. However, Borger asked the firms to break down the walls and barriers between each other and begin working together. “We can all learn. We can all grow from each other. You guys have a tremendous amount of experience, but you have different experiences. Share those experiences, share your knowledge, become a coalition, because at the end of the day we all have the same opponent: the plaintiff's bar.” He noted initial reluctance, but ultimately the model has been rolled out to other states.
Building this kind of coordination, however, is becoming more difficult as insurance towers become increasingly complex. The configuration of insurance towers has evolved significantly, with more carriers involved through quota shares and smaller tranches, making coordination more difficult and creating misalignment among stakeholders, according to the panelists. More players involved create the potential for “checked out” carriers who feel untriggered.
Stakeholder Misalignment
Fitch asked the panelists what the priorities and pressure points were for various roles in the insurance tower. According to Dane-Henry, from the risk management point of view, “Primarily, it’s the brand…. Our brand is paramount for our customers. It’s important that we maintain that integrity. Not having alignment and not having partnership hinders that process.” After that, his most important priority is “keeping my C-suite happy and making sure that they’re aligned and understand the process, [expectations, and timeline]…and [ensure], from my end, that we’re doing [what] we can to not jeopardize coverage and ensure that our partners are doing what they said they were going to do when I decided to pay them their premiums.”
From the primary insurance perspective, Borger explained that “it really comes down to cooperation within the carrier; within the tower. I think it’s easy for us being client professionals, and maybe even on the defense side of it, to dig our heels in and forget who our opponent is.” He noted that there is friction involved when there is an excess carrier that might want to make sure that the primary carrier settles; however, the true opponent is the plaintiff’s bar, not the carriers. “I think that’s something we forget when we are adjusting the claim; adjudicating the claim. We want the best result, and we sometimes pick a fight with the wrong person. So, I would just encourage us to remember that we’re all on the same team and our opponent is trying to get the best settlement possible….They want us to fight. They want us to have a lack of cooperation. They want us to do that because it helps them.”
Learning From the Plaintiff’s Bar
Cortese emphasized the difference between the plaintiff’s bar and the defense side when it comes to sharing data: “When you look at the plaintiff’s bar…they share everything, and we don't do that effectively because it's what we've always done.”
Schaer said it is shocking to him that, as an industry, “we can't be better at data aggregation, particularly like a [plaintiff’s] firm like Morgan & Morgan.” He cites a quote from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: What are they settling these cases at? What are they doing? A trial? How long after a mediation does it settle? Because Michael Bloomberg: “‘In God we trust, everybody else bring the data.’ And in an industry which is premised on data collection…if we could do that, we would be smarter and we would fight a better fight.”
Critical decisions like sending hammer letters, filing declaratory judgment actions, or reservation of rights letters require careful consideration of long-term consequences rather than reflexive actions. Furthermore, the panel related that cases should be valued objectively based on their actual worth, regardless of where they fall in the insurance tower, to avoid inflating settlement values or creating tower conflicts.
“We are very appreciative that CLM is about driving change,” said Fitch. She mentioned CLM Claims College as a way to help drive change. "Start with the School of Excess," Fith said. "Send anyone you can to that so we can build this coalition." She concluded, "Join us in the effort to combat the plaintiff’s bar."