Congratulations to Adam H. Fleischer, who recently conducted a seminar for over 250 insurance professionals from over 25 different companies on the topic of Primary v. Excess insurance issues.  The seminar, hosted by Swiss Re, addressed various drop-down issues discussed in Adam’s 35-page article on the topic.

The specific issues addressed in the seminar and article include the following:

1. Duty to Investigate: when does an insurer have to dig beyond the materials received from the insured? What types of obligations are courts placing on primary and excess insurers in terms of investigation obligations?
2. Does an excess insurer have a duty to defend when a primary insurer refuses to defend?
3. When a primary settles for less than its full limits, does an excess insurer have its excess obligations triggered?
4. When an excess insurer’s indemnity obligations are triggered, must the excess insurer indemnify the insured’s defense costs?
5. Does an excess insurer have to drop down and pay post-judgment interest on a large verdict, even when it was the primary controlling the whole defense?
6. When does an excess insurer have to pick up orphaned shares of an insolvent primary insurer?
7. Must an excess insurer drop down to pay defense or indemnity when there are earlier or later primary policies still available?
8. Excess v. Primary: What are an excess insurer’s rights to pursue a primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle?

If you are a client of BatesCarey LLP and would like a copy of Adam’s article or a presentation of these issues for your colleagues, please contact Adam any time at afleischer@BatesCarey.com.

Scott L. Carey spoke as part of an interactive forum presentation at the annual conference of the Railroad Insurance Managers Association in Chicago on September 19, 2012. The program was entitled  “We Can Settle Complex Claims Efficiently – Investigating the Frustrations of Working Through Large, Multilayered, Coinsured Losses.”

Robert J. Bates, Jr. attended an Insuralex meeting in London on November 8 and 9, 2012. BatesCarey LLP is a proud member of Insuralex, a global group of insurance lawyers with 20 member firms throughout the United States, South America and Europe.

In National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Mead Johnson & Co., the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana awarded summary judgment in favor of insurers on the issue of late notice. The court held that the insured’s notice of an underlying lawsuit seven weeks after a jury returned a $13.5 million verdict against the insured breached the notice provisions of the policy as a matter of law. The court held that the breach extinguished any potential for coverage under the policies.

Scott L. Carey and Matt M. Murphy were Planning Committee Members for Indiana Rail Road Company’s Railroad Liability Conference held July 11-13, 2012 at The Venetian in Las Vegas. Click here for more information.

On June 7, 2012, BatesCarey LLP hosted the summer meeting of Insuralex, a worldwide network of independent insurance and re-insurance representatives. The agenda included discussions on international maritime risks such as kidnap and ransom insurance, as well as U.S. bad faith issues, and the global impact of recent natural catastrophes.

Adam Fleischer was featured speaker at the Gen Re 2012 Claims Seminar in Stamford, Connecticut on June 19, 2012. Adam addressed “Excess and Primary Insurer Rights and Obligations: Who’s Making Who Drop Down and For What?” The topic included include: the extent of an insurer’s duty to investigate; an excess insurer’s obligation to drop down and defend; drop down obligations over an insolvent primary insurer; drop down obligations over properly or improperly exhausted primary coverage; and an excess insurer’s rights of equitable subrogation.

On August 2, 2007, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts explained that, even though an excess insurer agrees to follow the wording of a primary insurer, this does not necessarily mean the excess insurer is bound by the primary’s interpretation of that wording.

BatesCarey LLP recently won an unprecedented ruling for its insurance company client in the Illinois Appellate Court. The liability insurer argued that it had not approved of the settlement of a claim against its insured and that, therefore, the settlement and dismissal order prepared by defense counsel was not binding. The Illinois Appellate Court agreed and the case has now been returned to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the defense attorney had the insurer’s authority to settle the case. Robinson v. Ryan, et al., No. 1-06-1813 (March 29, 2007 1st Dist.)

Download PDF