Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
What is Subrogation and How Does it Affect Settlement Amounts?
In its recent decision in Temple Insurance Company v. Sazwan, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) considered the scope of, and exceptions to, an insurer’s right and duty to defend. This is the first decision in...more
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Harleysville Insurance Co. v. Heritage Communities, Inc., modified July 27, 2017, continues a trend of decisions aimed at preventing an insurer from acting in its own interest to...more
• Relationships between insurer, insured and insurer-appointed defense counsel – also known as the "tripartite relationship" – have long been recognized as a potential source of conflicts of interest. By a 5-4 majority in...more
Insureds won a round the other day when the South Carolina Supreme Court held that reservation of rights letters, which it characterized as nothing but “generic statements of potential non-coverage coupled with” large...more
The Nevada Supreme Court has adopted California’s independent counsel rules, holding that an insured is entitled to select its own counsel where an insurer’s coverage reservation creates an actual conflict of interest between...more
Unfair Trade Practices Exclusion Doesn't Cover Consumer Protection Suits - Why it matters: An unfair trade practices clause did not bar coverage for a policyholder's subsidiary, an Illinois federal court ruled, ordering...more
The Nevada Supreme Court has found that an insurer must provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and the insured, adopting California’s “Cumis Counsel” rule. While...more
When an insurer agrees to defend its insured against a potentially covered claim without reserving the right to deny coverage, the insurer usually has the right to control the defense of the underlying lawsuit. See 3 Jeffrey...more
Nearly 30 years ago, the California Court of Appeal announced its landmark decision in San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (1984), holding that if a conflict of interest...more
On October 15, 2012, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit – applying Texas law – addressed another Cumis counsel matter. See Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co., No....more