Fidelity, surety, and crime claims often begin with uncertainty. The loss may involve employee dishonesty, forged documents, altered records, lending irregularities, financial institution fraud, mortgage fraud, theft, robbery, or competing accounts of who caused the loss and when. The facts are often difficult to reconstruct, the paper trail can be incomplete, and the coverage issues may turn on precise policy language, timing, intent, causation, and proof of loss.
BatesCarey helps insurers manage these claims from first notice through final resolution. The firm handles high-stakes fidelity, surety, and crime matters in the United States and internationally, bringing the investigative discipline, coverage judgment, and litigation experience needed to evaluate the loss, preserve defenses, and move the matter toward the right result.
Our work includes claims arising under fidelity bonds, financial institution bonds, mortgage bonds, title bonds, surety bonds, statutory bonds, performance bonds, escrow security bonds, and commercial crime policies. BatesCarey’s experience also includes matters involving employee dishonesty and embezzlement, forgery, altered documents, counterfeiting, on-premises theft and robbery, lending losses, financial institution fraud, and mortgage fraud.
These claims require careful handling from the outset. BatesCarey works with insurers to investigate the facts, assess proof of loss, analyze coverage, identify exclusions and conditions, evaluate causation, preserve privilege, and determine whether the matter is positioned for resolution, mediation, arbitration, litigation, or recovery. When a practical resolution is available, the firm helps clients pursue it efficiently. When litigation is necessary, BatesCarey is prepared to defend the coverage position aggressively.
Fidelity and crime matters often intersect with other coverage lines. A single loss event may simultaneously implicate fidelity bonds, professional liability, Directors and Officers (D&O), Errors and Omissions (E&O), cyber, commercial crime, and financial institution coverage, raising questions of allocation, priority, and coordination that require cross-line analysis from the outset. BatesCarey helps insurers identify the controlling issues, avoid siloed analysis, and address disputes that do not fit neatly within a single policy form.
The firm also treats recovery as part of the claim strategy, not an afterthought. Fidelity matters frequently present subrogation and recovery opportunities that must be identified early and preserved while the claim is still pending. BatesCarey evaluates potential recovery avenues against employees, financial institutions, counterparties, vendors, professionals, and other responsible parties, then pursues recovery through negotiation or litigation when appropriate.
Insurers also rely on BatesCarey for ongoing guidance on the evolving fidelity, surety, and crime landscape. The firm advises on emerging coverage issues, policy drafting, and product development, helping clients maintain policy language and claims practices that reflect current risks, current law, and the realities of modern financial loss.
Representative Matters
- Gladstone v. Westport Ins. Corp., 2011 WL 5825985 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2011); Obtained summary judgment for an E&O insurer based on a claim being made outside of the policy period.
- Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. v. Westport Ins. Corp., 2:12-cv-00115-GLL (W.D. Pa.); Successfully defended an E&O insurer in a coverage action involving breach of contract and bad faith claims.
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dillon, Case No. 2009-CH-18893 (Ill. Cir. Ct. July 14, 2010); Obtained summary judgment for an E&O insurer based on a late notice of claim given by the insured.
- Westport Ins. Corp. v. Saperstein Agency, Inc., 2:09-cv-02549 (E.D.N.Y.); Represented an E&O insurer in a declaratory judgment action filed against an insurance agent/broker.
- Consolidated Resorts, Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., Case No. 01-1-0582 (2) (Cir. Ct., Hawaii); Obtained summary judgment for a D&O insurer in a coverage action involving breach of contract and bad faith claims.
- GAF Corp. v. Reliance Ins., Case No. 2:00-cv-06189-DMC-MF (D.N.J.); Obtained dismissal of a D&O insurer in a coverage action involving breach of contract and bad faith claims.
- Quicken Loans, Inc., et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., Case No. 09-11599 (E.D. Mich.); Represented London insurers in a declaratory judgment where the insured sought in excess of $10 million USD under a financial institution bond related to the alleged embezzlement of its employee.
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh PA v. Castellano, 102 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div.); Represented a domestic insurer in a subrogation case related to a fidelity bond claim, where the insurer sought in excess of $2.8 million from a bank pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and obtained a favorable appellate court ruling.
- 1300 Lake Shore Drive Condo Assoc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, Case No. 12 CH 7650 (Ill. Cir. Ct.); Obtained summary judgment in favor of a condominium association errors and omissions insurer, finding the policy provided excess coverage after the insured argued the policy provided primary coverage.
