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.
Category: Insurance Bad Faith
May 30, 2023David Deering
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, 2023David Deering
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, 2023David Deering
Retained by policyholder counsel as an insurance expert witness to review insurance industry claims handling standards of care for Commercial Property and Business Income losses. Policyholder’s business was highly seasonal with most of the Business Income concentrated in the several months before the Christmas holidays. Dispute arose following a large theft claim at the start of policyholder’s high season, with carrier refusing to consider the policyholder’s seasonal concentration of earnings when calculating the amount of Business Income loss. Attorneys Greg Goodheart and Ed Schreiber (818) 992-4463. Shimony v. State Farm, Case No.: 21CHCV00085 In Superior Court Of The State Of California For The County of Los Angeles.
December 30, 2022David Deering
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, 2022David Deering
Engaged by policyholder’s General Counsel to analyze and assist with claims-handling issues to settle a multi-million-dollar hail claim which the carrier refused to acknowledge exceeded the deductible. Engagement involved hiring additional roofing consultants and addressing carrier’s badly flawed analysis of the hail damage; claim eventually settled. Attorney Craig Crockett (817) 628-9998. TCRG v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
June 30, 2022David Deering
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.
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.
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.
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.