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.
Category: Commercial General Liability
30
Oct2023
Engaged by defense counsel to address allegations of insurance bad faith for a claim denial under a nursing home professional liability policy. Claim denial was premised on policyholder’s failure to disclose “circumstances related” to a prior claim on the renewal application. Attorneys Bill Morrison and Joanne Wendell, Morrison Law, LLP (925) 937-9990. Oxnard Manor LP v. Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-01322-SPG-MAR In United States District Court Central District of California.
October 30, 2023burld
28
Feb2023
Engaged by counsel for receiver/policyholder to evaluate Commercial General Liability and Pollution Liability relative to Insurance Bad Faith claims handling under 1980s policies with no pollution exclusions. The case was complicated by overlay of workers compensation coverage, contractual liability, and Reservations of Rights issues. Attorneys Brad Nes and Cullen Pick, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP (214) 466-4116. Standard Insulation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 2022-CP-40-01241 In the Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial Circuit State of South Carolina, County of Richland.
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
30
Nov2022
Engaged by defense counsel as an insurance expert witness to evaluate whether a ship repairer had complied with vendor contract insurance requirements for Commercial General Liability. Dispute arose when a harbor patrol officer capsized an upgraded boat during sea trials, injuring several of the ship repairer’s employees, who eventually sued the City of Norfolk. Attorneys John Buford and Sara Bugbee, Hancock, Daniel & Johnson, P.C. City of Norfolk Virginia v. Willard Marine, Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00109 and 2:17-cv-00110 In United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia.
November 30, 2022burld
28
Aug2022
Engaged by plaintiff’s counsel to analyze Insurance Bad Faith claims handling relative to a drilling company after its transition to self-insured and Workers Compensation coverage (previously provided by its PEO) and Commercial General Liability. Carrier provided the initial Excess Workers Compensation policy to cover catastrophic claims above plaintiff’s large deductible. After a rig fire resulted in multiple fatality claims, carrier delayed and then denied coverage. Attorneys Lisa Molsbee and Clay Christensen, Christensen Law Group, P.L.L.C. (405) 232-2020. Dan D v. New York Marine, Case No. CJ-2015-33 In The District Court of Grant County State of Oklahoma.
August 28, 2022burld
30
Nov2021
Engaged by policyholder’s defense counsel to analyze whether carrier actions constituted Insurance Bad Faith relative to assigning improper Workers Compensation and Commercial General Liability class codes and processing inaccurate premium audits. Case required analysis of carrier’s failure to determine and apply correct NCCI class codes for 4 years of audits and renewals. These deficiencies resulted in significant lost business opportunities due to wildly inaccurate NCCI Experience Modifiers 50-220% higher than actual, erratic premiums accounting, and disputes over revised audits premiums. Attorneys Lindsay Wright Brett, Brendan Cook and Lola Ojeniyi, Baker & McKenzie (713) 427-5000. Zurich v. TxEx Energy, Case No. 4:20-cv-3622 In United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division.
November 30, 2021burld
08
May2021
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review Insurance Agent Errors and Omissions standards of care for placing Commercial General Liability and/or Professional Liability coverage. Agent failed to recognize and address Advertising Injury exposures created by operations of the real estate firm policyholder which provided advertising and marketing services to developers and real estate entities. When policyholder was sued for “copyright Infringement” the claim was denied based on the Advertising Injury exclusion. Attorneys Andrea DeField and Austin Priddy, Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP, (305) 810-2500. Urban Living v. ISB Insurance Services, Case No. 202055546 In The 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
May 8, 2021burld
04
Apr2020
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.
April 4, 2020burld
03
Sep2019
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze Property and Business Income/Extra Expense coverage issues under Property, Docks & Piers and Excess Ocean Marine policies for two fire losses originating from a tenant’s dockside storage of wood pellets. Case included review of coinsurance issues, tenant’s status as a Dependent Property for Business Income loss plus carrier subrogation against tenant’s Commercial General Liability policy. Travelers (as subrogee of Port of Port Arthur) v. Texas Pellets, et al, Cause No. B-203,222 In 60th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas. Attorney Clint Brasher, Brasher Law Firm, PLLC. (409) 832-3737
September 3, 2019burld