Illinois Court Addresses Distinction Between Claim and Potential Claim

by Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Contact

In its recent decision in Lexington Ins. Co. v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127544 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2013), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had occasion to consider the issue of what constitutes a claim for the purpose of triggering coverage under a professional liability policy.
Lexington insured Horace Mann under an insurance company errors and omissions policy, providing claims made and reported coverage for the period September 28, 2010 to September 28, 2010. The policy insured Horace Mann for claims arising out of any act, error or omission in its rendering of or failure to render services in connection with its business as an insurer. Notably, the Lexington policy defined “claim” as “1. a written demand for monetary damages; or 2. a judicial, administrative, arbitration, or other alternative dispute proceeding in which monetary damages are sought.” The Lexington policy further clarified that “the Corporate Risk Manager, General Counsel's Office, Claims Legal Department of [Horace Mann] shall notify [Lexington] of the setting of a trial, arbitration or mediation date within 60 days of becoming aware of the date.”
The dispute between Horace Mann and Lexington pertained to Horace Mann’s handling of a loss on a non-commercial auto policy it had issued to a Florida insured. The auto accident happened in May 2008. In June 2008, counsel for the injured party issued a time limits policy demand to Horace Mann, offering to settle its claim for the policy’s $25,000 limit of liability, but only if Horace Mann accepted the demand within twenty days.  Horace Mann wrote back immediately to advise that it would take the demand under consideration but that it first needed to review the claimant’s medical records. The claimant thereafter withdrew its demand and filed suit against Horace Mann’s insured in August 2008. Horace Mann engaged in subsequent efforts to settle the matter, and in 2009 it retained outside counsel to analyze its own potential bad faith exposure. In a December 2009 email, counsel advised Horace Mann that if settlement were not reached, Horace Mann likely would lose a bad faith case.
In August 2010, the court in the underlying case scheduled a mediation. In anticipation of the mediation, counsel for the claimant wrote defense counsel in September 14, 2010 – two weeks prior to the inception of the Lexington policy – to discuss a potential bad faith claim against Horace Mann that could result in extracontractual exposure. The letter specifically warned defense counsel that Horace Mann would need to “open” its policy limits at the mediation if it desired to settle the case. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged in the letter that defense counsel would not be involved in evaluating the bad faith implications present by the claim, but nevertheless urged that Horace Mann be advised that plaintiff intended to explore extracontractual relief at the mediation, and that as such, the letter should be forwarded to Horace Mann for consideration. The letter was in fact forwarded to Horace Mann on September 20, 2010 – eight days prior to the inception of the Lexington policy. The mediation was held in December 2010 and proved unsuccessful. Twenty-seven days after the mediation, Horace Mann gave notice of potential claim to Lexington and advised that it was considering a settlement of the underlying claim for an amount up to $1.5 million. Settlement, however, was not reached prior to a jury awarding the underlying claimant $17 million, which ultimately was compromised for $7 million.
Lexington subsequently denied coverage to Horace Mann on the basis that the claim was not first made during the policy period, but instead was first made long prior to the inception of its policy. Lexington advanced two arguments in support of this position. Lexington first contended that the September 14, 2010 letter from plaintiff’s counsel to defense counsel constituted a “a written demand for monetary damages,” and thus fell within its policy’s definition of “claim.” Specifically, Lexington argued that by using language such as “extracontractual amounts” and “opening” the policy limit, plaintiff’s counsel signaled its intention to seek recovery directly from Horace Mann. Horace Mann argued in response that the letter at most was notice of a potential claim rather than an actual claim. The court agreed with Horace Mann, observing that:
[w]hile the letter is in "written" form, it is not addressed to Horace Mann. The letter is from [plaintiff’s] counsel to [defense] counsel. Because the letter was not addressed to Horace Mann, it can hardly be considered a demand on the same. The express policy language covers wrongful acts by Horace Mann, and therefore, requires that the written demand for damages be made upon the insured, Horace Mann, and not a third-party.
That the letter ultimately was forwarded to Horace Mann, prior to the policy’s inception, did not impact the court’s reasoning. In fact, explained the court, under Florida law, the underlying plaintiff could not assert a direct claim against Horace Mann prior to a verdict or settlement, which as of September 14, 2010, had not yet happened.
Lexington argued in the alternative that the September 14, 2010 letter advising of the mediation satisfied its policy’s second definition of claim; namely, a “a judicial, administrative, arbitration, or other alternative dispute proceeding in which monetary damages are sought.” While the mediation happened in December 2010, i.e., during the policy period, Lexington argued that the letter advising of the mediation should be considered when the claim was first made. The court rejected this argument as well, observing that “[a]t most, the letter constitutes notice of mediation, not the "alternative dispute proceeding" itself as defined by the policy language.” The court again relied on the reasoning that because the letter was written to defense counsel rather than Horace Mann, it could not satisfy the definition of claim. The court also rejected Lexington’s argument that Horace Mann was required to give notice of the mediation before it occurred. The court found no support for this position in the policy language. While the definition of claim required Horace Mann to give notice of a mediation within sixty days, the policy language was silent as to whether this notice must happen before or after the mediation. As such, and because Horace Mann gave notice of the mediation twenty-seven days after it happened, the court found that Horace Mann satisfied this policy condition.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Contact
more
less

Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.