Engaged by wholesale intermediary’s defense counsel to assess placement issues for surplus lines Warehouseman’s Legal Liability insurance. Dispute arose following carrier’s denial of a fire loss to goods stored at a warehouseman’s location. Attorney Joe Campo, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, (213) 680-5072. Rotax v. G.J. Sullivan/Amwins, et al, Case No. 20STCV107687 In the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Category: Property
15
Dec2023
Carrier defense counsel engagement to evaluate coverage issues for a dwelling total fire loss during Colorado wildfires. Case required analysis as to whether a surplus lines carrier had any duty relative to setting limits of insurance relative to replacement cost and/or rental receipts. Fischer v. National Indemnity Company, et al Case No. 2022CV30092 Division 1, District Court Grand County, Colorado.
December 15, 2023burld
30
Nov2023
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze Pollution Liability coverage and underwriting issues following denial of a bodily injury claim from a carbon monoxide leak. Engagement required analysis of claims-made renewal underwriting, first party cleanup vs. third party liability, and bad faith claims handling issues. Attorneys David Newman and Brittany Armour, Hogan Lovells US, LLP (267) 675-4600. OQ Chemicals v. Lloyds, Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01125 In The United States District Court For The Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
November 30, 2023burld
30
Jul2023
Engaged by carrier’s defense counsel to assess coverage and claims handling issues for a sprinkler system leak claim at a high value vacant dwelling and whether a surplus lines intermediary has any duty to advise a policyholder. The policyholder had declined water damage coverage during a surplus lines placement, resulting in carrier later denying the sprinkler claim. Attorneys Doug Fogle and Joel Wertman, Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP (215) 433-1500. Newtown Square v. Worldwide Facilities, et al, Civil Action No. 21-5397 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
July 30, 2023burld
15
Jun2022
Engaged by defense counsel to evaluate carrier’s investigation and claims handling conduct for a loss under a Financial Institution Crime policy. The dispute resulted after a claim for loan losses was denied based on the loss not resulting from employee dishonesty. Attorney John Moore, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (215) 988-2750. Appalachian Community Federal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance, Case No. 3:20-CV-0553 In United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division.
June 15, 2022burld
28
Feb2022
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review Insurance Agent Errors and Omissions relative to standards of care for placing Homeowners Insurance policies. Agent placed coverage with a ‘Cosmetic Roof Exclusion’ whereas prior carrier’s policy had no such exclusion for metal roofs. Policyholder suffered significant financial damage after denial of a hailstorm claim. Attorney Matt Montgomery, Hossley Embry, LLP. Permenter v. Assured Partners, Civil Action No. 3:31-cv-1325 In United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division.
February 28, 2022burld
30
Dec2021
Engaged by defense counsel to respond to policyholder allegations of Bad Faith Claims Handling of a purported Homeowners hail claim. Dispute resulted after carrier’s adjusters could find no visible evidence of hail damage, including after reinspection. Case required analysis of public adjuster’s inflated Xactimate estimates and questionable findings of roof damage. Attorney Carin Marcussen, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard (713) 766-7969. Hughes v. USAA, Cause No. 20-07-08642 In The 284th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.
December 30, 2021burld
30
Oct2021
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review Insurance Agent Errors and Omissions issues relative to standards of care for placing NFIP flood policies on buildings in unmapped rural areas with no Flood Zone determination. Complicating factors included issues of flood-in-progress and interstate highway construction blocking the natural drainage outlet of a glacial depression prairie lake decades before the flood. Wilkens v. Dorris; Attorney Mitch Peterson, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP (605) 357-1242
October 30, 2021burld
01
Jul2021
Engaged by policyholder counsel to serve as their Property Insurance and Equipment Breakdown / Boiler & Machinery Expert. Case required analysis of claims handling proof of loss issues after a low-pressure underground pipeline was damaged by an over-pressurization event. Case also involved Business Income and Insurance Bad Faith. Dispute resulted following carrier’s claim denial citing an “observable” damage requirement in lieu of technical pressure analysis as proof of loss. NiSource v. FM Global, Case No. 2:20-cv-00572-GCS-CMV in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division. Attorneys Brad Nes and Teri Josie-Diaz, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, (202) 739-3000.
July 1, 2021burld
30
Jun2021
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review issues of Homeowners Insurance Bad Faith claims handling for extensive mold damage to insured’s residence. Attorneys David Schack and Matt Segal, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (310) 284-3873. Buccholz v. Crestbrook Insurance Company d/b/a Nationwide, Cause No. 1:20-CV-00449-AP In United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
June 30, 2021burld