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.
Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Expert Witness
Surplus lines carriers write coverage for hard to place risks usually not written by standard markets. Risks typically written as surplus lines include aviation, pharmaceutical Product Liability, Ocean Marine, and Excess Flood.
Call (817) 980-4897 to discuss your case with Insurance Expert Witness Burl Daniel.
Underwriting
Underwriting factors which may require coverage to be placed in Surplus Lines markets include:
- Complexity of the account (i.e. - oil refineries, multi-state contractors, international operations).
- Distressed (i.e. - vacant buildings, high fire hazard, high loss ratio for Commercial Auto).
- Unique (i.e. - special events, wildlife parks, contractual liability issues).
- Capacity (i.e. - large construction projects, very high limits of liability required, catastrophe exposures, layered limits of liability).
Standard Markets
Insurance companies licensed specifically in a particular state are known as “admitted carriers” or the “standard markets”. These carriers are highly regulated with their policy forms and rates requiring approval by state insurance departments. Regulators closely monitor their financial condition and market conduct. Regulators collect a small percent of written premiums to finance each state’s “guaranty fund” which provide a policyholders’ safety net when an “admitted” carrier enters receivership or files bankruptcy. In the standard markets segment, the insurance agent’s customer is the policyholder, and the insurance agent (or agency) is typically appointed by contract to represent a carrier.
Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance
In contrast, “Excess & Surplus” lines insurance companies are known as “non-admitted carriers” or “non-standard markets” (state regulators also use the surplus lines terms “eligible”, “unlicensed”, and “alien” insurers). State insurance departments generally maintain a list of “approved” surplus carriers based to a great extent on each carrier’s financial condition. However, surplus lines carriers can be far more flexible due to minimal regulation of policy forms and rates. While premium taxes are collected, there is no guaranty fund protection for policyholders. Because the retail insurance agent placing coverage is considered the customer of a (wholesale) surplus lines agent, there is little or no direct contact between a surplus lines agent and the policyholder. Surplus lines agents write policies through direct carrier appointments, as managing general agents for a carrier and/or submit accounts to carriers on a one-shot brokerage basis with no contract.
Our Experience with Surplus Lines Insurance
Mr. Daniel’s expertise was developed from thirty-plus years dealing with Surplus Lines insurance. His experience includes extensive interface with wholesale surplus lines agents, managing general agents, and the nuances of structuring coverage using non-standard policy forms.
Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Cases
Engaged by Surplus Lines intermediary’s defense counsel to evaluate allegations of Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith involving placement and renewal of a contractor’s Commercial General Liability policies. Analysis involved guardrail operations being excluded, multiple policies and additional insured issues. Litigation followed carrier’s claim denial for a vehicle accident involving guardrail repairs performed by the contractor. Attorney Tom Alleman, Dykema Gossett PLLC (214) 698-7830. Guerra v. US Risk, et al, Cause No. C-3634-18-B In The District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas 93rd Judicial District.
Engaged by policyholder counsel alleging Agent Errors and Omissions as its basis to recover coinsurance penalties. Despite assuming duties to set replacement cost limits for a hotel, the insurance agency made material errors resulting in deficient property limits and the property being severely underinsured for a hailstorm claim. Engagement required analysis of agency’s flawed valuation methodology using tax rolls and appraised ‘market value’, coinsurance calculations, and issues involving Ordinance & Law and extended Business Income loss. Attorney Todd Hurd (817) 426-4529. Cornerstone, et al v. Rodda Yates, et al; Cases No. 2015-514,308 In The District Court Of Lubbock County, Texas, 99th Judicial District.
Retained by counsel defending against a third-party landlord’s allegations of Agents Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith for ‘failure to procure’ additional insured status. Policyholder’s landlord alleged reliance on being a Certificate Holder on ACORD Certificates of Liability Insurance as grounds for being an additional insured under policyholder’s Commercial General Liability and Environmental Liability policies. Engagement required analysis of insurance requirements in the lease, scope of coverage for additional insureds and/or whether landlord ever requested being added as an additional insured. Landlord’s allegations also included Business Income Loss of Rents during site cleanup. HLT v. AssuredPartners, Case No. 1:18-cv-00045-RP, In The United States District Court For The Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Attorney Lisa Yerger, Macdonald Devin P.C. (214) 499-5116
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze NFIP, non-NFIP and/or Excess Flood Insurance issues. Case required analysis of NFIP Flood Zones remapping and Flood Insurance Rate Map revisions for a Hurricane Harvey loss at an uninsured location. Agency was retained under terms and conditions of a fee-based insurance and risk management services contract. Attorney Will King, Feldman and Feldman, PC (713) 986-9471. The Harris Center v. Higginbotham, Case No. Case No. 201812120 In 80th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Engaged by defense counsel for Surplus Lines agency to address allegations of Insurance Agent E&O and Bad Faith including failure to procure proper insurance coverage. Case required analysis of the placement process to provide Property and Builders Risk insurance for an existing hotel plus renovations and additions. Dispute resulted from carrier’s partial denial of a windstorm claim while the hotel was still under construction. Attorneys Sarah Wariner and Scott Shanes, Clark Hill | Strasburger (469) 287-3900. Robertson v. Chubb, CRC, et al, Cause No. A160450C In The 51st Judicial District Court, Tom Green County, Texas.
Retained by policyholder’s counsel to opine regarding material misrepresentations made by the wholesale agent/intermediary in placing a large apartments/condominiums enrollment policy. Misrepresentations included the structure of self-insured retentions, towers of policy layers with multiple carriers, stop-loss limits and failure to add/delete properties when requested. Case required analysis of issues including Agents Errors & Omissions, Insurance Bad Faith, Commercial Property and Business Income Insurance. Property Risk Services Management v. Jonathan Hilsher, Risk Placement Services, et al, Cause No. DC-18-04287 In The 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Attorney Tim Soefje, Seltzer Chadwick Soefje & Ladik, PLLC (469) 626-5180.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze and opine on Agents Errors & Omissions relative to the procurement of a Hole-In-One Special Events policy. The case required analysis of agent’s failure to inform policyholder regarding minimum yardage warranties in the binder. The dispute resulted after two Hole-In-Ones were not covered, requiring the policyholder to pay the prize indemnity award. Old White Charities v. Bankers Insurance; Civil Action No. 5:l7-cv-01375 in the United States District Court for the (Southern) District of West Virginia. Attorneys Lorie Masters and Michael Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth (202) 955-1500.
Engaged by insurance agent’s defense counsel to analyze allegations of Insurance Agent Errors and Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith. Case involved multiple Commercial Auto policies, Commercial General Liability, Professional Liability and required analysis of coverage grants for loading/unloading. Dispute followed carrier claim denial due to vehicle in question not being described as a ‘Covered Auto’. Attorneys Amanda Harvey and Kayleigh Watson, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (214) 698-8000. National Ambulance v. Hija Insurance Agency, et al. Cause No. 2016-52143 In 11th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Retained by defense counsel to provide analysis and opinions regarding Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith relative to a Professional Liability policy renewal. Case included allegations of failure to procure alongside issues of questionable policyholder Medical Malpractice claims reporting. Surplus Lines carrier renewed a Claims Made policy with a material reduction of coverage; subsequent claim denial resulted in litigation involving multiple parties. Attorneys Paul Gerding and Echo Reynolds, Kutak Rock LLP (480) 429-5000. Infini v. Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc., et al; Case No. 2:16-cv-03874-PHX-GMS In The United States District Court, District Of Arizona
Retained by counsel for carrier seeking to rescind a Commercial General Liability policy based on agent’s failure to disclose material underwriting information on the application. Case required analysis of issues relative to Agents Errors & Omissions, Insurance Bad Faith Claims Handling and Workers Compensation issues involving an injured worker. Atlantic Casualty v. N&A Properties; Case 4:17-CV-368-A in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. Attorneys Camille Johnson and Steve Santayana, Savrick, Schumann, Johnson, McGarr, Kaminski & Shirley, LLP, (214) 368-1515.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze and opine on issues relative to Agents Errors & Omissions relative to Business Income coverage. Dispute resulted from Insurance agency’s failure to follow up with policyholder on carrier request for Business Income underwriting information at a new location. This failure resulted in partial denial of a Business Income claim when a building collapsed. Attorneys Mike Abrams and Kim Winter, Lathrop Gage, LLC (816) 460-5530. Axiom v. Marrs & Davolt, Case No. 16CY-CV00586 Division No. 5, In the Circuit Court of Clay County Missouri.
Engaged by defense counsel to analyze Agent Errors & Omissions issues relative to whether the agent was provided a copy of an oil field services Master Services Agreement. Plaintiff had failed to provide the agent with accurate information to obtain Jones Act / USL&H Maritime Workers Compensation and/or Other States coverage. The dispute resulted from the Commercial General Liability carrier denial of a contractual liability indemnity claim (under the customer’s MSA) for an employee injury which occurred over water. Zadok v. Bell Insurance, Cause No. 2016-44757 In 80th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Attorneys Ryan Brown and Nathan Shackelford, Hermes Law, PC (214) 749-6800.
Engaged by defense counsel to opine regarding Agent Errors & Omissions relative to whether the insurance agent was ever provided a copy of an oil field Master Services Agreement. The dispute resulted from an employee injury, plaintiff’s previous failure to complete required actions to obtain Workers Compensation and carrier denial of a Commercial General Liability claim. Allegations against the agent included failure to procure Commercial Auto and Commercial General Liability to comply with MSA contractual liability insurance requirements. Emperor v. Millennium Insurance Services; Cause No. 2016CI14546 In The District Court of Bexar County, Texas 150th Judicial District. Attorney Frank McNiff, Welder Leshin Lorenz McNiff Buchanan Hawn, LLP, (361) 561-8008.
Engaged by plaintiff counsel to analyze issues of coverage and claims handling under a Union Liability policy. The dispute resulted from carrier denial of labor contract violations claims; policyholder eventually assigned its rights to the third party claimant which pursued its coverage rights under Professional Liability, Directors & Officer and Employment Practices Liability alleging claims handling Insurance Bad Faith. Davis Wire v. Ullico Casualty Group, et al; No. 16-2-24564-1 KNT, Superior Court for the State of Washington In and For The County of King. Attorney Eamon Kelly, Sperling & Slater, PC, (312) 676-5845.
Engaged by defense counsel to address allegations of Managing General Agent E&O / Bad Faith involving placement of surplus lines. Litigation resulted following claim denial for a vehicle accident involving a city bus being driven by a temporary staff employee. Case involved Non-owned Autos coverage under Commercial Auto and/or as an endorsement to Commercial General Liability policies. Attorneys Heather Duplantis and Kevin Welsh, Phelps Dunbar LLP (225) 346-0285. Johnson v. City of Alexandria, Number 247,208 In 9th Judicial District Court For The Parish Of Rapides, Division “G”, State of Louisiana.
Engaged by defense counsel to analyze allegations of Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith involving placement of Surplus Lines Commercial General Liability. Case involved policy conditions that a general contractor be named as additional insured under subcontractors’ Commercial General Liability policies and maintain Certificates of Liability Insurance. General contractor was sued based on a subcontractors faulty work allegedly resulting in a fatality. Litigation ensued after carrier’s claim denial for failure to comply with policy terms and conditions. Attorney John Scott, Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto (973) 912-5222. Repoli v. LA Design and Construction, Lynoxx Group, et al / Coughlin v. Repoli, et al; Docket Nos. ESX-L-8325-14 and ESX-L-I011-15, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Essex County.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze coverage grants and claim denial under a Directors & Officers Liability policy. Engagement required analysis of Professional Liability exposure from litigation resulting from a client’s telemarketing services subcontracted to a third party as well as potential late reporting under Claims Made coverage forms. Attorney Scott Mager, Mager Paruas, LLC (954) 763-2800. Desai, et al v. ADT Security Services, Inc. v. The Elephant Group, Inc., et al v. Direct Savings USA, LLC; Case No. 1:11-cv-1925, United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to evaluate claims handling practices of excess layers carrier(s). Case involved Energy Exploration and Development/Operators Extra Expense offshore “removal of wreck and debris” claims resulting from Hurricane Ike. Engagement required analysis of Surplus Lines Umbrella policies coverage trigger(s) relative to exhaustion of underlying insurance limits. W&T Offshore v. National Liability & Fire Insurance Co., et al; C.A. NO. 4:14-CV-02740, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. Attorney Matthew Parrish, Taunton, Snyder & Slade (713) 993-2342.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze primary and excess carriers’ claims handling practices relative to denial of a multi-million dollar claim for theft of bitumen being stored in China. Both Inland Marine and Ocean Marine coverage was afforded under a single Marine Open Cargo policy form. Engagement required analysis of manuscript Marine Insurance policy forms relative to Bulk Oil Clauses, bills of lading and bailee interests. Great American v. Castleton; Civil Action No. 15-cv-03976-JSR In United States District Court For The Southern District of New York. Attorneys John Shugrue and Caroline Upton, Reed Smith, LLP (312) 207-1000.
Engaged by insurance agent’s defense counsel and designated as their Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith expert. Case involved Certificates of Liability Insurance issued after a policyholder declined renewal of a Commercial Umbrella. Litigation resulted from an injury to a bounce house patron, and whether the successor policyholder had Commercial General Liability with/without Commercial Umbrella coverage. Attorney George Carr, Janik LLP (440) 740-3016. KMAG v. Chubb, Case No. 1:15CV66 in United States District Court Northeastern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Engaged by agent’s defense counsel as their designated expert for Agents Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith. Case involved Property and Business Income Insurance written on a Surplus Lines basis. Dispute resulted from hailstorm claims adjusted on a Per Location/Per Occurrence Wind and Hail deductibles basis. Hipoint v. Pathfinder, et al, Case No. Case No.5: 13-cv-687-D In The United States District Court For The Western District of Oklahoma. Attorney Jim Secrest, Secrest Hill Butler & Secrest, PC (918) 494-5905
Engaged by defense counsel to opine regarding Agent Errors & Omissions relative to placement of a Broker-Dealer/Registered Investment Advisor(s) Professional Liability policy. Case involved evaluation of coverage afforded a named insured vs. additional insured, Surplus Lines, and Claims Made issues. Claims stemming from a Registered Investment Advisor’s fraudulent investment activities and subsequent conviction were denied by carrier which resulted in an Insurance Bad Faith claim against the agent. Onyx v. Indian Harbor, CalSurance, et al; Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-03426-P In The United States District Court For The Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Attorney Blake Bailey, Phelps Dunbar LLP, (817) 488-3134.
Engaged by CFO of oil and gas exploration company to analyze renewal issues for Directors & Officers and Employment Practices Liability insurance. Engagement focused on comparing coverage structure and scope of coverage grants found within policy forms of both Admitted and Surplus Lines carriers quoting renewal. Mike Herman, CFO, Newark E&P Operating, LLC, (817) 529-4510.
Engaged by plaintiff counsel to evaluate Insurance Bad Faith issues stemming from “failure to disclose material terms” of Commercial General Liability and Commercial Umbrella Liability over several years’ renewal policies. Case required assessment of Agents Errors & Omissions relative to Surplus Lines renewal procedures for Equine Liability coverage. Attorney Doug Patrick, Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., (864) 242-9000. Lanzone v. BB&T Insurance Services, In The Court of Common Pleas No.: 2013-CP-23-2758, State of South Carolina, County of Greenville.
Engaged by counsel defending allegations of bad faith for both Managing General Agent E&O and carrier claims handling practices. Dispute resulted from denial of ‘Well Out of Control’ and pollution claims from a ‘plugged & abandoned well’ fluids release. Case required analysis of an Energy Exploration & Development policy relative to first party property and third party pollution liability coverage. Denbury Resources v. Lloyds of London, et al; Cause No. 2012-10397 In The District Court of Harris County, Texas, 270th Judicial District. Attorneys Bart Hall and Jonathan Womack, Phelps Dunbar LLP (504) 566-1311.
Engaged by defense counsel for Surplus Lines broker as their Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith expert. Case required analysis of Property, Flood Insurance and Business Income claims issues relative to Statements of Value, Margin Clauses and Scheduled vs. Blanket policies. Litigation resulted from disputed values during flood claim settlement. Attorneys David Clark and Jack Urquhart, Beirne, Maynard, & Parsons, LLP (713) 623-0887. Menard v. Wells Fargo and Swett & Crawford; Civil Action No. 10-cv-7592, State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Milwaukee County.
Engaged by plaintiff counsel to evaluate Non-owned Autos coverage under Commercial Auto and Commercial Umbrella policies written as Surplus Lines. Case required analysis of Additional Insured status for subcontractors under contractual liability clauses in multi-layered oilfield services agreements. Rossi v. Pogue, et al; Cause No. 49524 In The District Court Hill County, Texas, 66TH Judicial District. Attorney Dwain Dent, The Dent Law Firm (817) 332-2889.
Retained by carrier counsel as their Insurance Bad Faith and Property Insurance Expert relative to claims handling Customs and Practices. Case required underwriting expertise when moving coverage from an admitted market Inland Marine builders risk to a Surplus Lines vacant dwelling policy. Litigation resulted when large water loss claim was denied due to vacancy disclosures on the insurance application. Pennink, et al v. Lloyds, et al; Case 1:11-cv-00673-TDS-WWD, North Carolina Durham County In The General Court of Justice Superior Court Division File No. 11-CVS-5555. Attorney Jeremy Stephenson, McNair Law Firm, P.A. (704) 347-6456; Attorney Jon Dryer, Wilson Elser Attorneys (215) 606-3908.
Retained by counsel defending agent against allegations of Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith. Litigation resulted following claim denial of a grain bin explosion loss. Engagement required Property Insurance and Surplus Lines expertise. Martinek v. Hertel, et al; Cause No. CV-12-0103 In The District Court of Grayson County, Texas, 59th Judicial District. Attorneys Tom Culpepper and Angela Caffey, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons (214) 871-8200.
Retained by policyholder counsel as their Property Insurance Expert to analyze Insurance Bad Faith claims handling issues. Case required expertise with water damage loss and vacancy permits on a Surplus Lines policy. Quackenbush v. Scottsdale; Case No. 2:12-cv-190-J In United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division. Attorney Dusty Stockard, Stockard, Johnston & Brown, PC (806) 372-2202.
Engaged by agent’s defense counsel as their Agents Errors & Omissions, Insurance Bad Faith, Business Income and Property Insurance Expert for multiple Hurricane Ike apartment complexes claims. Case involved Surplus Lines, standard of care, and disclosure of material facts relative to coastal windstorm deductibles. Landco v. Consolidated American Services; Cause No. 2010-23329 In The District Court Harris County, Texas, 281st Judicial District. Attorney Kevin Madden, Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, (713) 425-7452.
Engaged by policyholder counsel as a consulting expert to analyze Agents Errors & Omissions issues. Engagement required knowledge of customary insurance agent compensation relative to Surplus Lines placement of Builders Risk coverage under Ocean Marine policies. Trinity Yachts v. Thomas Rutherfoord and Marsh McLennan; Case 1:11-cv-00507-LG-JMR In The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. Attorney Joseph Briggett, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, (504) 568-1990.
Engaged by counsel for third party seeking to compel vicarious liability coverage for a non-owned watercraft accident. Case included issues of Insurance Bad Faith stemming from carrier’s denial of a Commercial Umbrella claim. The Umbrella was placed as Surplus Lines using an ISO-based policy form with a manuscript Marine Liability endorsement. Case required knowledge of the nuances between Commercial General Liability and Excess Marine Liabilities. Antill Pipeline v. Chartis; Civil Action No. 09-3646, c/w 10-2633, and c/w 11-2131 in United States District Court Section C-2 for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Attorneys Bob Reich and Larry Plunkett – Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC (504) 830-3999.
Engaged by counsel defending allegations of Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith. Case involved a Named Driver Exclusion and claim denial under a Commercial Auto policy and a Commercial Umbrella policy written as Surplus Lines. Diamond Pump & Transport, LLC v. Allied North American, et al; Cause No. A-126,966-A in the 70th District Court of Ector County, Texas. Defense counsel Kent Krabill, Lynn Tillotson Pinker and Cox, LLP (214) 981-3800.
Engaged by tug boat owner listed as third party Additional Assured under an Ocean Marine policy. Case involved Agents Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith requiring analysis of Hull damage late notice of claim and carrier claims handling practices. Marc Oliver v. Atchafalaya Marine, LLC, et al; Civil Action No. CV: 11-223-KD-C, United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. Attorney Margaret Miller, Margaret McDowell Miller, LLC (251) 635-6660.
Consulting expert engaged by counsel for carrier and surplus lines agent pursuing recovery from retail agent. Case involved placement issues for a Food Borne Illness policy covering Trade Name Restoration, Loss of Business Income and Incident Response. Following claim denial for an E-coli outbreak, litigation resulted from retail agent’s “failure to disclose material terms” to restaurant franchisees enrolled under a Master policy. Lloyds and Professional Liability Insurance Services v. IMA of Kansas; Cause no. D-1-GN-10-004172 In District Court of Travis County, Texas, 353rd Judicial District. Attorney Christopher White, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (214) 722-7100.
Engaged by carrier as Claims Made and Reported Professional Liability Insurance expert. Case involved late notice of claim and required expertise with Agents Errors & Omissions, Commercial General Liability (including Pollution Liability) and Commercial Umbrella. Environmental Analytics, Inc. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., et al. Cause No. 2010-42050; In The 234th J.D. Court Harris County, Texas. Attorneys Tim Kilgore and Dan Lynn, Jackson & Campbell, PC (202) 457-1632.
Engaged by agent’s defense counsel as an Ocean Marine Insurance and Agent Errors and Omissions Expert. Case required review of Ocean Marine placement procedures, assignment of loss payee/mortgagee interests and coverage territory issues. Dispute resulted from a hull damage claim denial for a dredge barge which ran aground near Cancun, Mexico. Deep Sea Financing, LLC v. Brennan & Co., Civil Action No. STCV1100702 In The State Court of Chatham County, State of Georgia. Attorney Pat O’Connor, Oliver Maner LLP, (912) 236-3311
Designated as a Property Insurance Expert by policyholder counsel to evaluate claims handling custom & practice. The litigation resulted from Hurricane Rita windstorm damage to a hotel and subsequent claim investigation by carrier. Engagement included review of Insurance Bad Faith issues on the part of a Surplus Lines carrier. Cause No. 12,426; S.A. Hospitality v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, In the 1st Judicial District Court, Sabine County, Texas. Attorney Chris Leavitt, The Buzbee Law Firm, (713) 223-5393.
Retained by policyholder counsel as their Property Insurance Expert to examine Agents Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith issues. Assignment required expertise with coinsurance penalties applied to claims under a Surplus Lines policy written on a Functional Replacement Cost basis and allegations of failure to disclose material facts. Oklahoma & Texas Panhandle Compress v. Aycock & Fowler Insurance Agency; Cause No. 2010-552,281; In The 72nd Judicial District, Lubbock County, Texas. Attorney Brad Parker, Parker McDonald, P.C., (817) 503-9200.
Designated as Agents Errors & Omissions, Insurance Bad Faith and Property Insurance Expert to evaluate policy renewal and claims handling practices. The dispute involved windstorm claims from Hurricane Ike and aspects of failure to disclose Replacement Cost vs. Actual Cash Value. Woodforest Baptist Church v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., et al, No. 2009-37563 in District Court, 157th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas. Attorney for insured Mark Beausoleil, (936) 336-6275.
Engaged by policyholder counsel as their Inland Marine and Property Insurance Expert. Litigation resulted from partial claim denial following the armed robbery of a jewelry store. Claim denial hinged on effective date of an endorsement to increase a Jewelers Block policy limits. Case required evaluation of Agent Errors & Omissions, Surplus Lines procedures and Insurance Bad Faith claims handling. Eagle Jewelry v. United National Insurance Company, et al; No. 2009-50936 In The District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District. Attorney Bob Tarics, The Tarics Law Firm, PC, (713) 461-9490.
Engaged by contractor’s attorney to analyze contractual liability claim denial under Products Liability Insurance. Case involves Agents Errors & Omissions, Surplus Lines, Commercial General Liability, and aspects of Insurance Bad Faith resulting from questionable Certificates of Insurance. Cause No. 2009-65915; High Tech Plumbing v. Colony Insurance Company, et al. In the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Attorney Kelly Prather, Greenwood Prather Law Firm, (713) 333-3200.
Retained by counsel for policyholder seeking coverage under a 1973 ISO Comprehensive General Liability form. Expert affidavit addressed issues involving Commercial General Liability and Products Liability Insurance coverage under Surplus Lines policies. Case also involved Pollution Liability coverage and Reliance Insurance Company liquidation proceedings (No. 269 MD 2001 In The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania). Reliance Insurance Co. v. Raybestos Products, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Cause No. IP 97-0027-C-Y/G. Attorney Brett Nelson, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, (317) 637-0700.
Designated by policyholder counsel as their Agents Errors & Omissions, Insurance Bad Faith and Property Insurance Expert. Engagement required expertise with blanket insurance, coinsurance vs. Agreed Value, Business Income, Wet Marine Insurance, and Surplus Lines custom & practice. Claim dispute followed after multi-million dollar flood damage to the largest marina on Lake Texoma. Lake Texoma Highport, LLC v. Lloyd’s of London, et al; Civil Action No. 4:08cv285; In The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas, Sherman Division. Attorney Bart Higgins – Shields, Britton, Frazier (972) 788-2040.
Designated by counsel for insured as Commercial Auto, Commercial Umbrella , and Agent Errors & Omissions expert. Case required analysis regarding failure to procure, non-owned autos, contractor’s liability, and additional insured endorsements. Allegations included Insurance Bad Faith. Attorney Charles Fairchild (816) 500-0280. MWR Contractors v. Becker Lassen Insurance Agency, Case No. 07BA-CV 01477 In Circuit Court of Boone County Missouri at Columbia.
Designated as Commercial Auto Insurance expert by counsel for policyholder. Case required expertise in Hired and Nonowned auto coverage, contractual liability, additional insureds and Commercial Umbrella policies. Pleadings involved issues of Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith. Mick White Renovations v. Affordable Insurance Services, et al; Case No. K.S.A. Chapter 60, In District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. Attorney Charles Fairchild (816) 500-0280.
Designated by plaintiff counsel as their Property Insurance Expert regarding a total loss due to Hurricane Wilma. Provided analysis pertaining to Agent Error & Omission. Case issues involved Florida Windstorm insurance, Business Income and Surplus Lines Insurance placement. Scott Katz & Beth Berry, Butler Pappas Attorneys , (813) 281-1900. TCB Farms v. Oswald Trippe, et al; Case No. 07-1389-CA, Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Collier County, FL.
Designated by plaintiff counsel as a Flood Insurance and Property Insurance Expert. Flood claim was denied after Tropical Storm Allison flooded a large apartment complex in Houston, TX. Provided coverage analysis for Agent Error & Omission, Business Income and Surplus Lines Insurance coverage issues. Meg Las Villas v. United States Fire; Cause No. 2007-54444, Harris County, TX. Attorney Paul Allred, (214) 528-9560, Sullivan & Holston.
Engaged by defense counsel as their Agent Errors and Omissions, Property Insurance and Insurance Bad Faith Expert. Case required expertise with Business Income, Flood Insurance, Surplus Lines & Ocean Marine Insurance. Litigation resulted from partial claim denials for losses during Hurricanes Jeanne and Francis. Attorneys Larry Montgomery & Lee Chase, Glankler Brown, PLLC ( 901) 525-1322 . Dyer Investment Company, LLC, et al v. Marsh & McLennan and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s; Case No. 05CV2812-D/P in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division.
Retained by plaintiff as consulting Property Insurance Expert to analyze issues surrounding claim denial under an Inland Marine Builders Risk policy. Case issues included Additional Insured endorsements, policy exclusions, Agent Errors & Omissions, and carrier Insurance Bad Faith. Attorney Michael Kennedy – Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens & O’Connell West Palm Beach, FL (561) 832-5900. Suffolk Construction v. Royal Indemnity Co., Brown & Brown, Inc., et al; Cause No. 502002CA012543, 15th Judicial District, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Retained by defense counsel to render opinions in answer to allegations of Insurance Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith claims misconduct by wholesale broker at Lloyds London. Case issues involved coverage under Lloyds Ocean Marine Insurance Builders Risk coverage form. Attorney Ashley Parrish – Cantey & Hanger, LLP, (214) 978-4145, The Houston Exploration Company v. Tysers International Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers & At Lloyds, et al, Cause No. 2004-61582 in the 234th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Engaged to assist defense attorneys answering alleged Agent Errors & Omissions. A fireworks explosion and fire resulted in multiple fatalities and widespread property losses. Allegations involved coverage placement disputes for numerous lines of insurance: Commercial Auto, Workers Compensation, General Liability Insurance, Commercial Umbrella, and Property Insurance. Attorneys Brent Cooper and Joyce Ondich – Cooper & Scully, PC, (214) 712-9500. Joseph M. Lamb, Jr. d/b/a Pyrotechnics by Lamb v. Britton-Gallagher, et al; Civil Action No. 2-04CV-400, US District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.