Engaged by counsel defending a Surplus Lines Brokers against allegations of improper procurement of a Warehouseman’s Legal Liability (bailee’s) policy. The Surplus Lines Broker had placed the coverage requested by the agent. Dispute arose following carrier claim denial for a fire loss to Business Personal Property stored at a third-party warehouse. The claim investigation revealed the warehouse owner had no ‘legal liability’, thus no coverage and the claim was denied. Attorney Joseph Campo, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (213) 680-5072. Rotax v. Sullivan Case No. 20STCV10768 | C/W 21STCV20307, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Category: Agent Errors and Omissions
30
May2024
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.
May 30, 2024burld
30
Mar2024
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze Agent Errors & Omissions and Insurance Bad Faith claims handling. Despite specific policyholder requests to agent, one building was severely underinsured and another not listed on the policy when back-to-back windstorms caused extensive damage. Attorney Sam McHard, McHard / McHard / Anderson & Associates PLLC (601) 450-1715. Fenn v. State Auto, Civil Action No: 22-105-PCS, In The Circuit Court of Pike County Mississippi.
March 30, 2024burld
30
Mar2024
Engaged by carrier’s defense counsel to review allegations of Insurance Bad Faith claims handling regarding a dwelling rented to a tenant but covered under a Homeowner policy. The court held that the carrier properly denied a total fire loss based on the policy’s Owner Occupancy endorsement. Attorney Zane Wilson, CSG, Inc. (907)452-1855, Baumgartner v. Umialik Insurance Company, Case No. 4FA-22-01509CI, In The Superior Court For the State of Alaska Fourth Judicial District at Fairbanks.
March 30, 2024burld
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
30
May2023
Engaged by policyholder counsel as an insurance expert witness to analyze Agents Errors & Omissions issues pursuant to an agent’s calculations of replacement cost for a high value dwelling. The agent’s worksheets showed artificially low values for square footage and quality of the home’s features. When a fire destroyed the home during the 3rd policy year, agent’s deficient calculations left the dwelling insured for ~50% of actual replacement cost. Attorney Rick Lombardo, Shafer Lombardo Shurin (816) 931-0500. Tolefree v. Farm Bureau, Case No. 2021-CV-000391 In The District Court Of Douglas County, Kansas.
May 30, 2023burld
30
Mar2023
Retained by policyholder counsel as an insurance expert witness to review insurance industry renewal procedures when an agent failed to adequately disclose Business Income insurance being deleted on a renewal policy. Dispute arose following a major fire loss, when the agent finally informed the policyholder clearly that its Commercial Property policy provided only Extra Expense coverage leaving a multi-million dollars claim uncovered. Attorneys Halsey Knapp and Barclay Valloton, Krevolin & Horst, LLC (404) 888-9700. Buckhead v. McGriff Insurance Services, Civil Action File No. 22-GSBC-0004 In The Georgia State-Wide Business Court.
March 30, 2023burld
28
Feb2023
Retained by policyholder counsel as an insurance expert witness to review insurance industry standards of care for claims reporting under Claims-Made policy form relative to Agents Errors and Omissions. Despite clear indications of a pending claim from a flawed acid wash facial treatment, the agent neglected to notify the carrier and further had the insured falsify renewal application information. Attorneys Brady Rife and Paul Belcher, Stephenson Rife, LLP (317) 593-4648. Krambeck v. All Insurance Services, LLC, Cause No. 49D01-2007-PL024354 Indiana Commercial Court In The Marion County Superior Court.
February 28, 2023burld
30
Jan2023
Engaged by policyholder counsel seeking recovery for construction defect claims resulting from installation of faulty pipe under the Houston Ship Channel. Case required contrasting coverage analysis of contractor’s Commercial General Liability versus manufacturer’s Products Liability, plus Insurance Bad Faith relative to agency’s failure to disclose available Products Liability coverage terms that would have likely covered the claim. Attorneys Michael Watson and Sheryl Kao - Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, LLP, (214-420-5526). Axis Pipe and Tube v. Alliant Insurance Services, et al, Cause No. 202138793 In 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
January 30, 2023burld
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