Maria G. Enriquez was honored and recognized by Martindale-Hubbell in its Bar Register of Preeminent Women Lawyers. The American Registry at Martindale-Hubbell recognizes and rewards excellence with custom awards based on peer review ratings. Congratulations to Ms. Enriquez!

Confidential

An arbitration panel agreed with BatesCarey LLP's argument that the "follow the fortunes" doctrine did not require a reinsurer to drop down and reinsure any portion of the risk below $1 million, even when the cedent had been required to drop down and pay a loss incepting at less than $1 million. The panel also rejected the cedent's claim for more than $113,000 in interest.

For 2014, Leading Lawyers announced that 11 partners at BatesCarey LLP were leading lawyers in the in the category of insurance coverage. Leading Lawyers is an independent rating service which gathers its list of honorees only after contact with thousands of lawyers in a given state. Lawyers are asked to rate which of their peers they believe comprise the top lawyers in their state in each practice area. Only those lawyers who are most often recommended qualify as Leading Lawyers. This honor is limited to less than five percent of all lawyers licensed to practice law in a given state.

Congratulations to this year's Leading Lawyers:

Robert J. Bates, Jr.
Arthur F. Brandt
Scott L. Carey
Maria G. Enriquez
Stanley V. Figura
Adam H. Fleischer
Maryann C. Hayes
Matthew M. Murphy
Joseph P. Pozen
John E. Rodewald
Mark G. Sheridan

Ellen J. Zabinski and Adam H. Fleischer offer insights and analysis of a number of leading insurance coverage decisions in the environmental realm in their article published in Mealy’s Litigation Report, entitled, Environmental Coverage Summary: 2013.  To review a copy of the article, please click here.

ProSelect Insurance Co. v. Springfield Hospital, Docket No. 227-4-12 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Windsor Unit May 16, 2013)

On May 16, 2013, the Vermont Superior Court, Winsor Unit, held that an insurer could introduce extrinsic evidence in a declaratory judgment action to negate the duty to defend its insured.  The court’s well reasoned opinion provides guidance for insurers grappling with the issue of whether an insurer can introduce extrinsic evidence to negate a duty to defend, and, if so, when.

A federal court in Illinois recently ruled the alleged misuse of Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Act (the “TIF Act”) monies by the City of Marion, Illinois did not allege covered “loss” under the policy of BatesCarey LLP’s client, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, even when USSIC withdrew from its initial agreement to provide a defense without a reservation of rights.  City of Marion, Illinois v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 12-cv-0999-SCW (S.D. Ill.  April 30, 2013).

Robert J. Bates, Jr. was elected as a founding member of the American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel ('ACCEC"). The ACCEC is composed of preeminent coverage and extracontractual counsel in the United States and Canada, representing the interests of both insurers and policyholders. The College is focused on the creative, ethical and efficient adjudication of insurance coverage and extra-contractual disputes, peer-provided scholarship, professional coordination and improvement of the relationship between and among our diverse members. The ACCEC held its Inaugural May Meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

Adam H. Fleischer conducted a mock reinsurance arbitration argument at the ARIAS Spring May conference in Palm Beach, Florida. Adam’s presentation addressed issues involving follow the fortunes and the duty of utmost good faith as these doctrine apply to the reinsurance of captive insurers. Attendees also received a detailed article Adam has authored on the topic.

A significant ruling on May 13, 2013 in a sexual molestation case may
benefit insurers’ “expected and intended” arguments far beyond the context of
molestation claims. An Illinois Appellate Court held that the expected and
intended exclusion can preclude a duty to defend even a negligent supervision
claim if the facts allege that the insured had reason to expect the predator’s
predilections. The court found that the terms “expected” and “intended” are not
synonyms, and that an insurer has no duty to defend “expected” injury even if
that injury was not “intended” by the insured.

Adam Fleischer and Jason Minkin highlight five recent professional liability decisions from the past month.  The topics addressed are: 1) whether “circumstances” that may lead to a claim constitute a claim; 2) whether a broker can be sued for its client’s purely financial loss; 3) whether a broker can be sued by an investor of one of its clients; 4) whether the insured can sue the broker directly for negligence; and 5) whether similar claims over two policy periods constitute the same or related claims.  The case summaries are presented below.

Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 712 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. (Ind.) Apr. 2, 2013)