Retained by insurance company defense counsel to examine Homeowners Insurance underwriting and address Insurance Bad Faith allegations against the carrier. Policyholder significantly understated and misrepresented his dwelling square footage on the application resulting in policy limits well below replacement cost. Regardless that the carrier relied on misrepresentations he made on the application to issue the policy, plaintiff now alleges carrier was responsible for calculating replacement cost after a 2017 fire destroyed the structure. Attorney Bill Manning, Van De Poel, Levy, Thomas, Arneal, LLP (925) 034-6102. St. Martin v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.: SCV-263296, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma.
Category: Insurance Bad Faith
08
Jun2022
Engaged by policyholder counsel to evaluate carrier’s claims handling practices in adjusting a Property and Business Income claim for water damage at an apartments complex. Insurance Bad Faith allegations stemmed from long carrier delays/deficiencies in processing claim information and excessive requests for Business Income claim documentation. Attorneys Brian Enright and Anthony Leony, Halloran Sage (203) 672-5432. Hill v. Providence Mutual, Docket No. NNH-CV 16-6065871-S, Superior Court J.D. of New Haven at New Haven.
June 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
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.
June 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze Insurance Bad Faith issues relative to Homeowners Insurance claims handling custom and practice for a theft loss. Central to the dispute were the excessive depreciation factors used to calculate Actual Cash Value versus Fair Market Value, the carrier questioning ownership of the stolen contents, and long delays in processing the claim. Attorney Tom Friedman, Brown, Bonn & Friedman, LLP (702) 942-3900. Maxwell v. Travelers, Case No. 2:20-cv-01669-JAD-BNW In United States District Court District of Nevada.
June 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review claims handling custom and practice for Homeowners Insurance. Litigation resulted following a claim denial after a fire destroyed high value personal property stored off-premises during a home renovation. Case required in depth analysis of policy language relative to limits and coverage for personal property off-premises under specific circumstances and whether the carrier committed Insurance Bad Faith in denying the claim. Attorney David Heller (281) 599-8775. Tavakoli v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, Cause No. 2021-14612 In The 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
June 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
Engaged by carrier counsel pursuing an Insurance Agent Errors & Omissions action for Bad Faith to recover claim payments made under a Workers Compensation policy underwritten based on agent’s material misrepresentations on the application. After a tree trimming worker was seriously injured it was discovered the agent had withheld critical underwriting information relative to eligible NCCI classifications and guidelines for the Workers Compensation program. Case required analysis of NCCI class codes and disparate answers provided on multiple Workers Compensation applications. Attorneys Brad Burns and Amanda Newman, Dickinson Wright, PLLC (602) 285-5000. FirstComp v. Ensign, Case No. CV2020-007001 In the Superior Court Of The State of Arizona In And For The County Of Maricopa.
June 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
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 8, 2022David Deering
08
Jun2022
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.
June 8, 2022David Deering
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, 2021Don Hirsch
26
Mar2021
Retained by insurance agency counsel defending alleged Agent Errors and Omissions for failure to procure Business Income coverage for Covid-19 losses under a Commercial Auto (Mobile Operations) endorsement to a Businessowners policy. Case required response to a laundry list of alleged duties owed by the agent far outside the accepted standards of care for a reasonably prudent Texas insurance agent. Case assessment included the lack of physical damage, the standard virus exclusion found in most ISO property forms, and the likelihood of the insured’s failure to read the policy. Attorneys John Nevins and Robert Bragalone, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, (214) 231-4660. Sanbuco v. Governor Insurance Agency, et al; Civil Action No. SA-20-CV-01045-XR In United States District Court, Western District of Texas San Antonio Division.
March 26, 2021Don Hirsch