LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
SNR Denton on Butler v. First Acceptance Insurance Co.: Lawyer Cannot Testify as Expert in Bad Faith Case Where Lawyer’s Background Is Not Relevant To Issues in Case

By Ronald D. Kent, Partner, SNR Denton Butler v. First Acceptance Insurance Co., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (N.D. Ga. 2009), concerns an insurer’s duty to settle. Butler received what his lawyer regarded as an inadequate response to a time-limit demand for the $25,000 policy limit, obtained a ...

SNR Denton on Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.: Wisconsin Recognizes New Form of Bad Faith

By William T. Barker, Partner, SNR Denton In Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. , the Wisconsin Supreme Court has recognized a new form of bad faith failure to settle: failing to minimize use of the insured’s deductible. This commentary critically examines that decision...

SNR Denton on New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. National Casualty Co.: Primary Insurer Has Right To Discovery from Excess Insurer To Assess Fault for Failure To Settle

By William T. Barker & Ronald D. Kent, Partners, SNR Denton New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. National Casualty Co. holds that a primary insurer, sued by the excess insurer for failure to settle, is entitled to defend on the ground that the excess insurer would not have settled even had...

SNR Denton on Doherty v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co.: When Is Bad Faith Failure To Settle a Jury Question in New York?

By William T. Barker & Justin N. Kattan In Doherty v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. , [1] a sharply divided Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for an insurer on bad faith failure to settle. If followed, this would arguably raise the already high threshold for failure to settle claims...

SNR Denton on DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co.: Insurer Faced with Multiple Claims Exceeding Policy Limits Must Seek to Minimize Insured’s Financial Exposure

By William T. Barker, Partner, SNR Denton DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co. applied Rhode Island's unique standard for an insurer's duty to settle to multiple claims exceeding limits. In doing so, it adopted the minority rule that such an insurer must seek to minimize insured's financial...

Pillsbury Winthrop: Ninth Circuit Reaffirms that Insurers May be Obligated to Initiate Settlement Discussions Under California Law

By Brian Martin and Nathaniel Smith , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Insurers frequently disclaim any duty to participate in settling a third party claim against their insureds unless and until the third party claimant makes a settlement demand for a specific amount. The Ninth Circuit Court...

Duty to Settle Requires a Willing Plaintiff – No “Bad Faith” Failure to Settle

By Barry Zalma, Attorney and Consultant In March I posted an article on the need to put a stake through the heart of the tort of bad faith . The post that follows deals with a case that supports the position I took in that post and makes me wonder why more courts don't recognize the inequity...

Excess Carrier Could Not Seek Reimbursement from the Primary Insurer Based On Its Rejection of a Claimant’s Settlement Offer Within Its Primary Limits Because There Was Not a Final Excess Judgment

In RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Discover P&C Insurance Co [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ], the primary insurer issued the insured a commercial automobile liability policy with a $1 million limit per-occurrence and in the aggregate, while an excess insurer issued the insured a policy...

The Eastern District of California Holds That A Carrier May Have An Affirmative Duty To Attempt to Settle A Claim Against The Insured When It Is Presented With A Reasonable Settlement Opportunity

Travelers Indem. of Conn. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169453 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ] In Travelers , the district court concluded that the carrier must act in good faith in response to reasonable opportunities to settle...