LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
SNR Denton on First-Party Bad Faith in Maryland

By William T. Barker, Kirk R. Ruthenberg and Kenneth J. Pfaehler Maryland common law never recognized a cause of action for first-party insurance bad faith. Johnson v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co., 74 Md. App. 243 (1988). But Maryland created private statutory rights, effective October 1, 2007. A federal...

Chapter Abstract for New Appleman Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, Second Edition: Chapter 8 Defenses to Bad Faith Claims

By William T. Barker, Partner, SNR Denton Chapter 8 addresses defenses which insurers might assert in addition to their attempts to negate insureds’ claims that the insurer breached contractual duties ordinarily imposed as part of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Section 8.02[1...

William T. Barker, Kirk R. Ruthenberg & Kenneth J. Pfaehler on “First-Party Bad Faith in Maryland: Does the New Statute Reach ‘Fairly Debatable’ Claims Denials”

By William T. Barker, Kirk R. Ruthenberg, and Kenneth J. Pfaehler, SNR Denton In their article “First-Party Bad Faith in Maryland: Does the New Statute Reach ‘Fairly Debatable’ Claims Denials” appearing in the September/October issue of Coverage , William T. Barker, Kirk R...

Reed Smith on The Insurance Company’s Settlement of Tort Claims: An Analysis of In Re East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litigation

By John Berringer and Jennifer Katz, Reed Smith LLP In In Re East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litigation , the New York Supreme Court permitted the primary insurance company to enter into a settlement which clearly was not “in the best interests of the insured.” That decision set an extremely...

Responding to Independent Counsel Arguments Based on R.G. Wegman Construction Co. v. Admiral Insurance Co.

By William T. Barker, Partner, SNR Denton Counsel for insureds are likely to use the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in R.G. Wegman Construction Co. v. Admiral Insurance Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 679 (Jan. 14, 2011), as a basis to argue for broader rights of independent counsel than formerly recognized...

SNR Denton on Haley v. Allstate Insurance Co.: Does an Insurer's Duty of Good Faith Require It to Assist the Insured in Uninsured Motorist Litigation?

By Jennifer Yu Sacro and William T. Barker, Attorneys, SNR Denton In Haley v. Allstate Insurance Co. , a Washington federal court held that an insurer may incur bad faith liability in the course of defending an uninsured motorist action filed by its insured if the insurer fails to present at trial...

SNR Denton on Reasonableness of Insurer’s Delay in Offering Policy Limits Is Question of Fact: Allstate Insurance Co. v. Herron

By Ronald D. Kent, Partner, SNR Denton In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Herron, [1] Allstate had offered its policy limits, but not until after expiration of a time-limit demand. A jury found that Allstate had acted reasonably, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in pertinent part. It found no abuse of discretion...

Reed Smith LLP on Avoiding Disproportionate Forfeiture of Insurance Coverage Through Doctrines of Waiver, Estoppel, Mend the Hold, Prejudice, and Good Faith and Fair Dealing

By Timothy P. Law and Lisa A. Szymanski, Attorneys, Reed Smith LLP This article discusses various doctrines applied by courts to avoid the technical forfeiture of insurance coverage. These doctrines include waiver, estoppel, "mend the hold," the requirement of prejudice, and the duty of...

McCarter & English on Dealing with Conflicts of Interest Inherent in Retrospective Premium Policies

By Steven H. Weisman and Anne Matthews, Attorneys, McCarter & English, LLP There is an inherent conflict of interest created by retrospective premium policies not present in the more typical, guaranteed cost policy. In a guaranteed cost policy, the parties' interests are generally aligned...

Duties of Reinsurers – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 74

By Daniel W. Gerber, Jeffrey L. Kingsley, and Clayton D. Waterman Chapter 74 provides a comprehensive analysis of the duties, obligations and limits of reinsurers in reinsurance transactions. Section 74.01 begins by examining the duty of utmost good faith. Section 74.01[1] discusses the cedent's...

California Court Holds § 998 Offer Exceeding Policy Limits Made In Good Faith

In its recent decision in Aguilar v. Gostischef , 2013 Cal.App. LEXIS 816 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 11, 2013) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ], a California appellate court had occasion to consider whether a claimant’s statutory settlement offer under California Code of Civil...

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...

California Fair Claims And SIU Regulations Require Annual Training

You Must Comply With California Regulations by September 1 Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations All insurers doing business in California must comply with the requirements of California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (the “Regulations”) or face the ire of, and...