Clients regularly ask their counsel to propose alternative fee arrangements and they are growing in popularity. While these arrangements can be beneficial for clients, they should be carefully considered when an insurance company will be paying all or part of the defense fees. Insurers are typically averse to alternative fee arrangements; they are more comfortable with a straight hourly arrangement – after trying to impose rate caps and litigation guidelines of course. Carriers have ingrained methods of managing defense costs and negotiating bespoke alternative arrangements with individual insureds is not cost-effective or efficient for a claims adjuster dealing with dozens or even hundreds of cases. Accordingly, insureds may need to accept more traditional fee deals when retaining counsel that will ultimately be paid by the insurer. Continue Reading Alternative Fee Arrangements When the Insurer Is Footing the Bill
A number of companies have been sued by the FTC in recent years, alleging, for example, that the company made claims regarding the product or service without adequate substantiation. Many of these companies are small private companies with limited resources. These companies frequently have “Management Liability” or “Private D&O” coverage which may provide relief. Many insureds do not understand that these polices are different than public company D&O policies, because Management Liability policies provide broad coverage for the company itself, not just for the directors and officers. If a company is sued by the FTC, these policies may provide coverage whether individual defendants are named or not. Continue Reading There May Be Coverage for the Defense and Settlement of FTC Claims
Are communications among a client, a third party, such as an insurance broker, and the client’s attorney privileged? The answer is yes, if the communications are confidential and reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Behunin v. Superior Court, 2017 WL 977095 (2d Dist. March 14, 2017), decided last week, addresses this question. Continue Reading Communications With Your Broker May Be Privileged
In what it described as a case of first impression, the Northern District of California ruled that a professional liability policy that excluded the insured’s “assumption of liability obligations in a contract or agreement” did not extend to breach of warranty or false advertising claims arising out of a genetic data testing company’s marketing and sale of a personal genome service. See Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. 23andMe, Inc. (July 22, 2016) N.D. Cal. No. 14-cv-03286-BLF. What is noteworthy about this case is not so much the decision, but the fact that the insurer challenged coverage on this ground. While this issue apparently has never been decided in the context of a professional liability policy, both case law and custom and practice recognize that the same phrase used in a general liability policy applies only to liabilities “assumed,” i.e. created by, a contractual indemnity agreement. Continue Reading “Assuming” the Obvious: Exclusion for “Assumption of Liability in a Contract” Does Not Apply to Breach of Professional Services
Under a ruling this week from the California Insurance Commissioner, your company may be insured under an unenforceable workers’ compensation program. You may also be entitled to a refund of premiums paid to California Insurance Company (CIC) and Applied Underwriters (Applied), two Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries.
Our April 19, 2016 post discussed a decision from the California Department of Insurance finding that the EquityComp workers’ compensation program sold to Shasta Linen Supply by CIC and Applied is void as an unfiled collateral agreement. CIC appealed the administrative law judge’s decision finding the program void. Shasta appealed the denial of its claim for reimbursement of all sums in excess of actual claims paid. On June 20, 2016, the California Insurance Commissioner affirmed the ALJ’s decisions. Continue Reading UPDATE: Is Your Workers’ Compensation Program Unlawful?