DOCSLIB.ORG

Please Excuse the Delay: the Consequences of Untimely Notice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Please Excuse the Delay: the Consequences of Untimely Notice ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Please Excuse the Delay: The Consequences of Untimely Notice, Slow Investigation, and the Failure to Communicate Please Excuse the Delay: The Consequences of Untimely Notice, Slow Investigation, and the Failure to Communicate J. James Cooper Jordan J. La Raia Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP Houston, Texas Terrance J. Evans Duane Morris LLP San Francisco, California Katherine E. Mast Sedgwick LLP Los Angeles, California Miles C. Holden Hanson Bridgett LLP San Francisco, California American Bar Association Section of Litigation Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar March 1–3, 2012, Tucson, AZ ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Please Excuse the Delay: The Consequences of Untimely Notice, Slow Investigation, and the Failure to Communicate TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The “Notice” Condition ................................................................................................................. 1 A. Typical Policy Language .................................................................................................. 1 B. Rules of Construction ....................................................................................................... 2 1. California .............................................................................................................. 2 2. Illinois .................................................................................................................... 2 3. Nevada .................................................................................................................. 2 4. New York .............................................................................................................. 3 5. Texas ..................................................................................................................... 3 C. Effect of Untimely or Unreasonable Notice .................................................................... 3 1. California .............................................................................................................. 3 2. Illinois .................................................................................................................... 3 3. Nevada .................................................................................................................. 3 4. New York .............................................................................................................. 3 5. Texas ..................................................................................................................... 4 D. Proving Untimely Notice & Prejudice ............................................................................. 4 1. Generally a Fact Question ................................................................................... 4 a. California ................................................................................................. 4 b. Illinois....................................................................................................... 4 c. Nevada ..................................................................................................... 5 d. Texas ........................................................................................................ 5 2. Who Has Burden of Proof? ................................................................................. 5 a. California ................................................................................................. 5 b. Illinois....................................................................................................... 5 c. Nevada ..................................................................................................... 6 d. New York ................................................................................................. 6 e. Texas ........................................................................................................ 6 3. Defining Untimely Notice & Prejudice .............................................................. 6 a. California ................................................................................................. 6 b. Illinois....................................................................................................... 6 c. Nevada ..................................................................................................... 7 d. Texas ........................................................................................................ 7 4. Evidentiary Issues ................................................................................................ 7 a. California ................................................................................................. 7 b. Illinois....................................................................................................... 7 c. Nevada ..................................................................................................... 8 d. New York ................................................................................................. 8 e. Texas ........................................................................................................ 9 1. Prejudice as a Matter of Law ............................................................................ 12 a. California ............................................................................................... 12 b. Illinois..................................................................................................... 12 c. Nevada ................................................................................................... 12 d. New York ............................................................................................... 12 e. Texas ...................................................................................................... 13 E. Waiver of Late Notice Defense ....................................................................................... 13 1. California ............................................................................................................ 13 i 3970185.1 ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Please Excuse the Delay: The Consequences of Untimely Notice, Slow Investigation, and the Failure to Communicate 2. Illinois .................................................................................................................. 14 3. Nevada ................................................................................................................ 14 4. New York ............................................................................................................ 15 5. Texas ................................................................................................................... 15 F. Claims-Made Policies—The Prejudice Rule May Also Apply .................................... 16 1. California ............................................................................................................ 16 2. Texas ................................................................................................................... 16 G. Additional Insured Issues & Notice From Other Sources ........................................... 17 1. California ............................................................................................................ 17 2. Illinois .................................................................................................................. 18 3. New York ............................................................................................................ 18 4. Texas ................................................................................................................... 19 III. The “Settlement Without Consent” Clause ............................................................................... 20 A. Typical Policy Language ................................................................................................ 20 B. Prejudice is Required ..................................................................................................... 20 1. California ............................................................................................................ 20 2. Illinois .................................................................................................................. 21 3. Nevada ................................................................................................................ 21 4. New York ............................................................................................................ 21 5. Texas ................................................................................................................... 22 C. Prejudice as a Matter of Law ......................................................................................... 23 1. California ............................................................................................................ 23 2. Texas ................................................................................................................... 23 D. Waiver .............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drafting and Enforcing Complex Indemnification Provisions
    Drafting And Enforcing Complex Indemnification Provisions D. Hull D. Hull Youngblood, Jr. and Peter N. Flocos Youngblood, Jr. is a partner in the Forget about copy and paste. The best indem­ Austin, Texas office nification provisions start with the details of of K&L Gates LLP. Mr. Youngblood the transaction. focuses his practice on government contracting, the security industry and com plex THE PURPOSE of this article is to assist transactional financial transactions, and regularly represents and litigation attorneys in the negotiation and drafting clients in a wide array of local, state, and federal of customized, and therefore more effective, indemnifi- contracting transactions and disputes. He can be cation provisions in a wide range of situations, and also reached at [email protected]. to spot certain litigation issues that may arise out of in- demnification provisions. This article will identify issues Peter N. and strategies and suggested language that can act as a Flocos starting point to protect the client’s interests in the area is a partner in the of indemnification in complex transactions and litigation. New York City Readers should note that this article is for informational office of K&L Gates purposes, does not contain or convey legal advice, and LLP. Mr. Flocos, may or may not reflect the views of the authors’ firm or who began his any particular client or affiliate of that firm. The infor- legal career as mation herein should not be used or relied upon in regard a transactional lawyer and then to any particular facts or circumstances without first con- became a litigator, sulting a lawyer.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)
    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
    [Show full text]
  • Efe, Opinion Imposing Sanctions, 19PDJ058, 09-17-20.Pdf
    People v. Anselm Andrew Efe. 19PDJ058. September 17, 2020. A hearing board suspended Anselm Andrew Efe (attorney registration number 38357) for one year and one day. The suspension, which runs concurrent to Efe’s suspension in case number 18DJ041, took effect on October 28, 2020. To be reinstated, Efe must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated, has complied with disciplinary orders and rules, and is fit to practice law. In a child support modification matter, Efe did not competently or diligently represent his client. He ignored disclosure and discovery requirements, and he failed to advise his client about the client’s obligations to produce complete and timely financial information. Later, when opposing counsel filed a motion to compel discovery, Efe failed to protect his client’s interests, resulting in an award of attorney’s fees and costs against the client. Efe also knowingly declined to respond to demands for information during the disciplinary investigation of this case. Efe’s conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client); Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(2) (a lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished); and Colo. RPC 8.1(b) (a lawyer involved in a disciplinary matter shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority). The case file is public per C.R.C.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to Basics Professional Indemnity Construction and Engineering
    Back to Basics Professional Indemnity Construction and Engineering womblebonddickinson.com Version 2 1 Contents Introduction Part A Understanding construction contracts and claims Construction contracts 5 Completion of construction works 7 Claims in construction projects 8 Part B Key legal principles behind professional indemnity claims in construction projects Contract vs. common law 11 Contractual “standard of care” ... and what it actually means 14 Transferring obligations in construction projects 15 What you need to establish to bring a claim 16 Summary of main dispute resolution forums 17 Insurance 19 Experts 20 Reduce the risk 21 Introduction Welcome to the Back to “‘One of the best firms out Basics booklet on there’... ‘a real pleasure to construction and work with’ according to engineering professional clients, who praise its ‘first-rate services’ and its indemnity issues. ‘perfect combination of The aim of the booklet is to assist intelligence, tactical those who are relatively new to prowess and personality’.” construction and engineering professional indemnity, or for those Legal 500 2018 who would benefit from a quick reminder of some key points. “Incredible. In terms of I hope you will find the material reporting, they’re well Hannah Cane useful. Of course, please do not Partner hesitate to contact me, or the rest of aware of what the market the team, should you have any requires. They’re questions. commercial, straightforward and can see the bigger picture. They know what direction to steer the claimant in.” Chambers and Partners UK Guide 2018 womblebonddickinson.com Version 2 3 Part A Understanding construction contracts and claims womblebonddickinson.com Version 2 4 Construction contracts The most common procurement methods are Traditional Parties and Design & Build.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect
    STATE STATUTES Current Through March 2019 WHAT’S INSIDE Defining child abuse or Definitions of Child neglect in State law Abuse and Neglect Standards for reporting Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal Persons responsible for the child and State laws. At the State level, child abuse and neglect may be defined in both civil and criminal Exceptions statutes. This publication presents civil definitions that determine the grounds for intervention by Summaries of State laws State child protective agencies.1 At the Federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment To find statute information for a Act (CAPTA) has defined child abuse and neglect particular State, as "any recent act or failure to act on the part go to of a parent or caregiver that results in death, https://www.childwelfare. serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, gov/topics/systemwide/ or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that laws-policies/state/. presents an imminent risk of serious harm."2 1 States also may define child abuse and neglect in criminal statutes. These definitions provide the grounds for the arrest and prosecution of the offenders. 2 CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320), 42 U.S.C. § 5101, Note (§ 3). Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov CAPTA defines sexual abuse as follows: and neglect in statute.5 States recognize the different types of abuse in their definitions, including physical abuse, The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Malpractice
    Legal Malpractice Professional Liability Claims, Litigation Strategies, and Attorney Disciplinary Procedures Friday, March 24, 2017 Friday, March 10, 2017 New York City | Live & Webcast Westchester | Live Program Friday, March 24, 2017 Friday, March 17, 2017 Albany | Live Program Rochester | Live Program Friday, March 31, 2017 Long Island | Live Program 4.0 MCLE Credits 3.0 Ethics | 1.0 Law Practice Management Interactive Video Conference Formats are approved for MCLE Credit for all attorneys, including newly admitted. www.nysba.org/LegalMalpractice2017Materials Sponsored by the Law Practice Management Committee, the Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section and the Trial Lawyers Section of the New York State Bar Association. This program is offered for educational purposes. The views and opinions of the faculty expressed during this program are those of the presenters and authors of the materials. Further, the statements made by the faculty during this program do not constitute legal advice. Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved New York State Bar Association Program Description Lawsuits against lawyers arising from errors and/or omissions in the performance of legal services are on the rise. It is now an integral part of a law firm’s business practice to evaluate its legal risk and malpractice insurance needs. This program is designed to educate attorneys on how to prosecute and/or defend a legal malpractice action. In addition, this program will educate attorneys about their legal malpractice exposures, what they should do in the event that a lawsuit is filed against them, and what they should do when situations arise that indicate that a legal malpractice claim is likely.
    [Show full text]
  • Indemnity: "Pass-Through" Provisions
    Indemnity: "Pass-Through" Provisions January 2005 by: James Donohue, Esq. and Edward M. Koch, Esq. Overlooking the subtle nuances of indemnity provisions in a proposed contract is a common—and often costly—mistake. Parties eager to win a bid often look past contract language which can require them to pay not only for their own mistakes, but for those of another party, too. (For more background on indemnity, see, “Who Pays For Your Mistakes”, Executive Newsletter, Fall 2004, located in the Publications Section of www.whiteandwilliams.com). For matters being decided under Pennsylvania law, a recent Supreme Court decision illuminates a previously dim region of the indemnity landscape. In Bernotas v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., the Court substantially abrogates the use of so-called “pass-through,” “conduit,” or “flow-through” indemnification provisions that are common in construction subcontracts. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, “passthrough” indemnification provisions will only be valid if the indemnification obligation is stated in clear and unequivocal terms. Form book or cut-and-paste boilerplate won’t do. INDEMNIFICATION, GENERALLY Indemnification refers to one party’s obligation to pay for the liability of another for certain specified events. The source of this obligation can be either through the common law or, as addressed by the Supreme Court in Bernotas, through contract. Historically, Pennsylvania courts have closely scrutinized contractual indemnification provisions. For example, one could seek indemnity from another for one’s own negligence, but general indemnity language was insufficient to affect this end. Instead, a clear and unequivocal statement of indemnification for one’s own negligence had to be clearly spelled-out in the contract provision in order for it to be effective under Pennsylvania law.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowden Ku 0099M 13859 DA
    A Failure to Communicate: Li Shangyin’s Hermetic Legacy By Emily Bowden Submitted to the graduate degree program in East Asian Languages and Cultures and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. ________________________________ Chairperson Keith McMahon ________________________________ Crispin Williams ________________________________ Xiao Hui Date Defended: February 5, 2015 i The Thesis Committee for Emily Bowden certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: A Failure to Communicate: Li Shangyin’s Hermetic Legacy __________________________ Chairperson Keith McMahon Date approved: February 23, 2015 ii Abstract An in-depth study of the Tang poet Li Shangyin, focusing on selected hermetic poems that illustrate Shangyin’s approach to Chinese poetics. This paper emphasizes the frustrating, elusive quality of Shangyin’s hermetic verses, exploring the themes and techniques that both complicate and explain this poet’s unique style. iii Contents Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………i Acceptance Page…………………………………………………………………………ii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….iii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter One: A Short Biography of Li Shangyin…………………………….………….5 Chapter Two: Literary Exposition of Li Shangyin’s Poetry…………….........................12 Chapter Three: Close Reading of Selected Poems……………………………………...37 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………74 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….76 0 iv Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Indemnification and the Duty to Defend
    AN OVERVIEW OF INDEMNIFICATION AND THE DUTY TO DEFEND Indemnification & Duty to Defend Subcommittee, ACEC Risk Management Committee Subcommittee Chair Theodore D. Levin, P.E., Attorney Morris Polich & Purdy LLP Subcommittee Members Karen Erger, Vice President, Director of Practice Risk Management Lockton Companies, Inc. Albert Rabasca, Director of Industry Relations XL Specialty Insurance Company Homer Sandridge, Underwriting Director, Professional Liability Travelers Insurance Creighton Sebra, Attorney Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP Principles and History One of the most basic principles of tort law is that every person should be responsible for damage that they have caused. Many states have reduced this concept to statute, each stating almost word for word that “Indemnity is a contract by which one engages to save another from a legal consequence of the conduct of one of the parties, or of some other person.”1 In many lawsuits, a plaintiff’s damages are caused by the convergence of several contributing factors originating from several different sources. To give one common example, a plaintiff homeowner alleging property damages resulting from construction defects may assert claims in one lawsuit against any of the diverse parties that contributed various scopes of work to the project, including the general contractor, subcontractors and trades that contributed to the defective work, as well as design professionals such as civil engineers, architects, and structural engineers. To put it even more bluntly, the owner files one suit against everyone in sight. In practice, however, the plaintiff more often merely sues the party or parties with whom he or she contracted, and lets the named defendant(s) do the legwork to identify and sue other parties that may also be responsible.
    [Show full text]
  • A Failure to Communicate
    A Failure to Communicate by Toni McGee Causey, … Published: 2008 in »Killer Year« J J J J J I I I I I Only the South could‘ve produced Bobbie Faye Sumrall. Maybe only Louisiana. The distinction‘s too fine for me because I‘m not from the South, but I can tell you that Bobbie Faye could not have been born on the laconic plains of the Midwest, or the cold streets of Boston, or the freeways of the San Fernando Valley. She is a heat-seeking missile, a Technicolor heroine rising out of the humidity with a vocabulary as explosive and a past as checkered and abilities as stunning as any you‘d find in Marvel Comics. The same can be said for her creator, the extravagantly talented Toni McGee Causey. In A Failure to Communicate , a motley trio of bad boys picks the wrong Feng Shui Emporium to hold up and discovers that Bobbie Faye is the last woman on the planet you want on the other end of a gun. —Harley Jane Kozak, author of Dating Dead Men One hour and forty-five minutes ago… If she got out of this one alive, he was just going to fucking kill her. It would be much easier that way. She was his ex, she was a raving fucking loon, and here she was, holed up inside Ce Ce‘s where she worked (an outfitter store, with the dumbass name of Ce Ce‘s Cajun Outfitters and Feng Shui Emporium, though he was surprised Ce Ce didn‘t include the whole voodoo aspect of her business— probably couldn‘t cram that on the small wooden sign).
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue Are Contractual Indemnity Agreements Contracts of Insurance?
    Winter 2008-2009 Volume 9, Number 3 IN THIS ISSUE Are Contractual Indemnity Agreements Contracts Of Insurance? My Policy, My Choice?—Insureds, Insurers & Selection of Counsel The Texas MDL Statute and Insurance Litigation Official publication of the Insurance Law Section of the State Bar of Texas THE INSURANCE LAW SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS Officers 2008-2009 Council Members 2008-2009 CHAIR: (2 YR TER M EXP 2009) (2 YR TER M EXP 2010) EXE C UTIVE DIRE C TOR BRIAN S. MARTIN BRIAN L. BLAKELEY DAVI D H. BRO W N DONNA J. PA ss ON S Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Blakeley & Reynolds, P.C. Brown & Kornegay LLP Texas Institute of CLE Irons, L.L.P. 1250 NE Loop 410, Suite 420 2777 Allen Parkway P.O. Box 4646 One Riverway, Suite 1600 San Antonio, TX 78209 Suite 977 Austin, TX 78765 Houston, TX 77056 Email: [email protected] Houston, TX 77019 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] (2 YR TER M EXP 2009) PU B LI C ATION S DIRE C TOR CHAIR ELECT: WILLIA M J. CHRI ss (2 YR TER M EXP 2010) CHRI S TOPHER MARTIN BETH D. BRA D LEY Texas Center for Legal Ethics & JANET K. COLANERI Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wis- Tollefson Bradley Ball & Mitchell, Professionalism The Colaneri Firm, P.C. dom, L.L.P. LLP Ethics and Professionalism 2221 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 620 808 Travis, Suite 1800 2811 McKinney Avenue, Suite 250 Texas Law Center Arlington, TX 76006 Houston, TX 77002 Dallas, TX 75204-2530 P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\STEVE's OPINION & ORDERS\06-10217.Conti-Opinion.Wpd
    2:06-cv-10217-BAF-VMM Doc # 27 Filed 01/10/07 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 261 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 06-CV-10217-DT vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES CORP. and CONTI ELECTRIC, INC., Defendants. __________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY BRIEF and ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTI ELECTRIC, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is presently before the court on (1) plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief, and (2) the motion of defendant Conti Electric, Inc., for summary judgment. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2), the court shall decide these motions without oral argument. Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) issued a performance bond to ensure the payment of fringe benefit contributions which defendant Consolidated Electric and Technology Associates (“Consolidated”) was obligated to make pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. When Consolidated defaulted under the collective bargaining agreement, plaintiff paid $100,000 on the bond to the Electrical Workers’ Insurance Fund. Plaintiff then commenced this suit against Consolidated (against which a default judgment has been entered) and Conti Electric, Inc. (“Conti”). 2:06-cv-10217-BAF-VMM Doc # 27 Filed 01/10/07 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 262 The claims against Conti are for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that it issued the bond at Conti’s oral request, based on Conti’s promise to sign an indemnity agreement whereby Conti and Consolidated jointly would indemnify plaintiff for any liability or losses on the bond.
    [Show full text]