CaseWatch: Insurance A national insurance law newsletter | December 2013 Vol.15, No.7

Actions and Proceedings Editors

Tort Claims Against Insurer Are Timely But Separate Sarah J. Delaney Cava v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of , PA. Richard J. Cohen (W. Va., September 12, 2013) Daniel W. Gerber

CaseWatch: Insurance provides West Virginia’s highest court ruled that a third-party complaint against an insurer was timely summaries of and ac- properly dismissed because it was not derivative of the underlying wrongful termination cess to insurance law decisions claims against an employment practices liability (EPL) insurance policyholder. and legislation. For ease of refer- Normally, impleader is allowed as a matter of course when a party seeks coverage by ence, we have organized cases an insurer who has disclaimed coverage and refuses to defend the underlying action. by topic. CaseWatch is the col- However, dismissal of the third-party complaint was proper in this instance because it laborative effort of Goldberg did not seek insurance coverage, only tort damages arising from the insurer’s alleged Segalla’s Global Insurance Services bad faith denial of coverage. Notably, the policyholder was still entitled to bring its Practice Group. We appreciate your claims in a separate lawsuit against the insurer. Under the West Virginia savings interest and welcome your feedback. statute, the policyholder had one year from the date of the dismissal of the third-party Please share this publication with complaint to file a new lawsuit because the complaint had not dismissed on the merits, your colleagues. If others in your and the claims against the insurer had been timely filed within one year of the denial organization are interested in re- of coverage. ceiving CaseWatch, or if you do not wish to receive future issues, please Action Seeking Defense Premature Where Separate Rescission Action contact Sarah J. Delaney. Is Pending Rocklin Park Place Condos. Owners Ass’n v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. Interactive PDF: Case titles, headlines, (E.D. Ca., September 4, 2013) and other references are linked to full- text decisions and additional resources.

The insurer in this case denied coverage under a commercial general liability policy, We welcome you as a fan: Global Insurance Services Facebook stating that the underlying claim took place before the policy was enacted. The insurer Page sought rescission of the policy based on a material misrepresentation in a different Follow us on Twitter for daily action. The policyholder brought a claim for breach of the duty to defend. The court industry updates: @InsureReReport held that because the insurer’s rescission action could void the policy, it was not the proper juncture for summary adjudication of the duty to defend. View our blog for daily case law updates: www.InsureReReport.com

Attorney Advertising Statute of Limitations on was unambiguous and both parties were of the boat was an attorney for the firm who Declaratory Judgment Action Runs sophisticated entities. later pled guilty to the charge of boating under From Initial PRP Letter the influence, a criminal act in Alabama. The Land O’ Lakes, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co. of No Bodily Contact Required for relevant policy excluded coverage for any “[w] Wausau Application of Assault and Battery illful or intentional misconduct or criminal act (8th Cir., August 29, 2013) Exclusion on the part of any insured or during any illegal Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Corporation activity on the party of any insured [including] The Environmental Protection Agency v. Oxnard Hospitality Enterprise, Inc. loss, damage, injury, or liability occurring (EPA) sent a letter to the insured in 2001 (Cal. Super., September 16, 2013) while an insured is operating the insured informing it that the agency considered it watercraft.” The court found this to be “plain, to be a potentially responsible party (PRP) The court freed an insurer of $10 million unambiguous language.” The policyholder under the Comprehensive Environmental in potential indemnity damages due to argued that he was not boating under the Response, Compensation, and Liability an assault and battery exclusion. The influence even though he pled guilty to and Act (CERCLA). The EPA sent a second underlying events concerned the dousing was convicted of that crime. The court found letter in 2008, at which point the insured of a nightclub dancer with gasoline after the argument unavailing, stating that what sought coverage from the insurer. The which she was set on fire following an the policyholder was arguing was to “ignore insurer denied coverage and a declaratory altercation outside the nightclub. Not once his guilty plea and conviction.” Accordingly, judgment action ensued. The court found was there body-to-body contact during the there was no coverage. that the declaratory judgment action against dousing and burning of the dancer. In part, the insurer was barred by the six-year the exclusion stated that no coverage would Lack of Signature Does Not Come statute of limitations which began to run be afforded for any claim “in connection Back to Bite Insurer when the initial PRP letter was sent. with the prevention or suppression of any Reaux v. Moresi ‘assault’ or ‘battery.’” Assault was defined (La. App. 3d Cir., August 28, 2013) as “the threat or use of force on another that Exclusions causes that person to have apprehension The claimant was injured when he swerved of imminent harmful or offensive conduct.” his car to avoid a neighbor’s dog. The No Ambiguity in the Contract Battery was defined as “negligent or insurer refused to cover on the basis that Claims Exclusion intentional physical contact with another the policy had an animal liability exclusion. Landmark American Insurance Company without consent that results in physical or However, the plaintiff argued that a lack of v. The Industrial Development Board of the emotional injury.” The policyholder argued signature invalidated the exclusion. The trial City of Montgomery that body-to-body contact was required to court agreed. However, the appeals court (M.D. Ala., September 9, 2013) trigger the exclusion since it was part of the overturned the trial court and disclaimed definition of “battery.” The court disagreed, coverage, stating that “there is no case law or This matter arose out of a number of stating that the exclusion was unambiguous statute requiring the animal liability exclusion suits by landowners on the basis that and that body-to-body contact was not be signed to be valid.” the policyholder had entered into option required. contracts with the plaintiff landowners for the purpose of procuring land for a Coverage for Boating Accident Duty to Defend potential automobile manufacturing site. Barred Due to Illegal/Criminal Act The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. Exclusion No Duty to Defend Battery Claim The policyholder’s policy contained an Markel American Insurance Company v. Essex Ins. Co. v. Bayless exclusion from coverage for “any actual Norris (E.D. Okla., September 10, 2013) or alleged liability … assumed or asserted (M.D. Ala., September 13, 2013) under the terms, conditions, or warranties A policyholder was sued for acts of battery of any contract or agreement.” The A federal court in Alabama released an committed by one of its employees in the policyholder argued that the exclusion was insurer from any duty to defend or indemnify underlying action. The insurer brought an action ambiguous and, in the alternative, that even its policyholder, a law firm, when the firm’s seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to if the exclusion was enforceable, coverage boat collided into another boat, causing a defend. The court held that because the claims should be afforded in the interest of public minor in the policyholder’s boat to be thrown originated from a single alleged intentional act policy. The court rejected the policyholder’s into the water and suffer laceration of his of battery there was no coverage under the arguments, stating that the exclusion right leg and crushed right ankle. The driver policy.

CaseWatch: Insurance December 2013 Vol.15, No. 7

2 PRP Letter Constitutes “Suit” Texas Continues to Find Total on these emails, the insurer denied the Under Policy Pollution Exclusion Unambiguous insured’s claim, and sought more than Anderson Bros. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Linn $1 million in reimbursements for benefits Ins. Co. Energy LLC, et al. paid. The district court found that there (9th Cir., August 30, 2013) (S.D.Tx., September 5, 2013) was substantial evidence to support the insurer’s denial of benefits, but went on to The insured received PRP letters from the A Texas federal court stayed true to the find that among other things, the denial was EPA requiring responses to questions that state’s approach on the absolute pollution procedurally unreasonable, and therefore establish CERCLA liability. The insurer exclusion, finding it unambiguous and an abuse of discretion, because the insurer argued that it had no duty to defend, as a barring coverage for property damage did not fulfill its duty to “consider the source” suit had not been initiated. The court found arising out of leakage from a Louisiana of the emails. The Fifth Circuit overturned, that the insurer had to defend against pipeline. There, the total pollution exclusion stating that “[i]n evaluating whether a “suits,” and that the definition of “suit” was endorsement barred coverage for any plan administrator wrongfully has denied ambiguous under the policy. Therefore, the property damage “which would not have benefits under the Employee Retirement insurer owed coverage. occurred in whole or part but for the actual, Income Security Act (ERISA) … this court alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, never has imposed a duty to investigate the seepage, migration, release, or escape of source of evidence. Instead, the burden is Environmental/ ‘pollutants’ at any time.” Contaminants were on the claimant to discredit evidence relied Pollution included in the definition of “pollutants.” on by the plan administrator.” The court found that “[t]he allegations Court Applies Texas Law, of the underlying complaint fall squarely Second Circuit Sheds Light on Leading to Successful Outright within the scope of the [pollution exclusion] Recovery of Attorney’s Fees After Dismissal of Action endorsement” and accordingly, rejected ERISA Settlement Lapolla Industries, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty the policyholder’s argument that the Scarangella v. Group Health, Inc. Insurance Company exclusion was inapplicable because it did (2d Cir., September 10, 2013) (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2013) not specifically exclude damage caused by storage, handling, or transportation of the In this case, the Second Circuit applied A federal court sitting in New York applied pollutants. the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardt v. Texas law in dismissing a coverage claim Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co. requiring a party for bodily injury and property damage due to show that they achieved “some degree to pollution exposure. In doing so, the Life, Health, Disability, of success on the merits” before recovering court clearly distinguished the two states’ & ERISA attorney’s fees in an action under the treatment of the exclusion. While in New ERISA to a situation involving a voluntary York, the exclusion has generally been Fifth Circuit Remands $1 Million settlement between the parties. The held to be ambiguous except in the context Reimbursement Question on decision provides additional guidance to of “traditional” pollution exposure, Texas Attorney’s Fraudulent Obtainment how the courts may make the determination holds otherwise, treating the absolute of ERISA Benefits on attorney’s fees in an ERISA case where pollution exclusion to be unambiguous and Truitt v. Unum the outcome is not clear. The Second applicable to bar coverage in non-traditional (5th Cir., September 6, 2013) Circuit decided that a summary judgment pollution exposure cases. decision rendered by the district court was The insured claimed that her lower-back, sufficient to constitute more than “a purely leg, and foot pain prevented her from procedural victory” so as to justify an award working as an attorney, and the insurer of attorney’s fees under ERISA. The court awarded long-term disability benefits. Years did not go on to award attorney’s fees, later, a former companion of the insured but rather, remanded the case back to the provided the insurer with emails indicating district court. that, while claiming to be disabled, the insured engaged in activities — such as traveling abroad — that were inconsistent with her asserted disability. Based, in part,

CaseWatch: Insurance December 2013 Vol.15, No. 7

3 NYDFS Rejects NAIC Principles- Fraud education, and understanding rather than Based Reserving System for Life intent to defraud. Therefore, the defendant Insurers Fraud Claims Over Gift Cards failed to prove that the plaintiff acted with intent to conceal or misrepresent material September 11, 2013 Not Enough to Destroy Defense facts in connection with their insurance Obligation claim and thus failed to meet its burden Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky of ACE European Group, Ltd. v. Abercrombie of proving the applicability of the policy’s the New York Department of Financial & Fitch Co. exclusionary clause. Services (NYDFS) notified the National (S.D. Ohio, September 13, 2013) Association of Insurance Commissioners After Success on Fraud Claim, that New York would no longer participate The defendant conducted a nationwide in the “principles-based reserving” (PBR) Christmas gift card promotion, offering a Insurer Recovers Some Attorney’s approach. The NYDFS, which adopted a $25 gift card to consumers who purchased Fees Zenith Ins. Co. v. Glasbern, Inc. working model of the approach on a trial a designated amount of merchandise. The basis, let it expire on September 13. In promotional gift cards expired and had their (E.D. Pa., September 10, 2013) describing the reasons for New York going balance voided out on January 30, 2010. to a new system, Superintendent Lawsky Some of the gift cards issued in connection In an underlying action, the defendant was stated that at the time, the PBR approach with the promotion, however, had the words found to have committed fraud in violation was projected to raise reserves by $10 “no expiration date” imprinted on them, of the Insurance Fraud Act billion. However, he said that currently, while others had no printed information when it misrepresented the nature of its “companies have increased their reserves regarding an expiration. Multiple class business by omitting information about their for “in-force business by less than $1 billion.” action lawsuits were brought over the issue farming activities. After trial, the plaintiff- He believes the shortfall in reserves could and the plaintiff denied coverage for multiple insurer sought counsel fees and costs lead to serious problems down the road. reasons, including lack of coverage of the against under the act. The court agreed has also expressed concerns consumer fraud counts. The court found and granted fees, but held that the hours about the regulators’ ability to ensure that that, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, should be reasonably expended and a court the models used by individual insurers will the actual substance of the complaints should review the time charged, decide adequately address capitalization needs in the underlying lawsuits revealed that whether the hours set out were reasonably and cost concerns for both regulators and the plaintiffs set forth a factual basis for expended for each of the particular smaller insurance companies. the alleged consumer fraud, in addition to purposes described, and then exclude alleging breach of contract. The consumer those that are “excessive, redundant, TransAmerica Joins Others in $11.2 fraud claims are not somehow absorbed or otherwise unnecessary.” Inasmuch, Million Death Benefits Deal into the breach of contract claims for the the court cut costs that were incurred for August 30, 2013 purpose of determining the applicability unsuccessful causes of actions and other of the duty to defend. For that reason, the costs it deemed were unreasonable under TransAmerica is the latest of life insurers to court found that the defendant was and is the circumstances. commit to a multi-million dollar deal as a result entitled to a defense. of the multi-state examination of life insurance “Wildly Inaccurate” Appraisal Was companies surrounding the use of the Social Lack of Sophistication Leads to Not Insurance Fraud Security Administration’s Death Master File. Misrepresentations Stewart Title Ins. Co. v. Credit Suisse Under the agreement, TransAmerica will Dominick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Idaho, August 29, 2013) regularly use the federal database to match its (E.D. La., September 11, 2013) insureds and annuitants in order to promptly The plaintiff-insurer argued that determine when an insured has died and to The defendant-insurer denied coverage the defendant made material track down and pay the policy beneficiaries. under the fraud exclusion after proving misrepresentations that amounted to The multi-state examinations have resulted on several occasions that the plaintiffs insurance fraud under Idaho law, including in almost 45 percent of life insurers reaching made inconsistent statements regarding a misleading appraisal, intending to similar settlements and are aimed at ensuring their claim history and financial situation. deceive the insurer to issue a title policy. an insurer’s use of the Death Master File for However, the plaintiffs’ testimony at The court disagreed that false statements the benefit of both the beneficiaries and the trial indicated that the inconsistencies were made since the appraisal clearly insurers. were caused by a lack of sophistication, stated that it was not estimating current

CaseWatch: Insurance December 2013 Vol.15, No. 7

4 market value but instead was to be used for primary policies covered “Any One Accident Personal and financing purposes. The court further held or Occurrence” and provided that “each Advertising Liability that the plaintiff cannot argue that it was occurrence shall be treated separately, but misled by anything other than the language a series of claims hereunder arising from No Coverage Where No of the appraisal and if that language was the same occurrence shall be treated as Disparagement Alleged confusing Idaho case law requires the due to that occurrence.” The policies did Agrakey Solutions, LLC v. Mid-Continent plaintiff to seek clarification. not otherwise define the term “occurrence.” Cas. Co. The excess policies expressly defined (9th Cir. Idaho, September 4, 2013) False Statements Not Enough “occurrence” as:

Without Intent to Defraud In this Case, claimant sued its insurer for Haley v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. [A]n event or continuous or breach of contract for failing to defend in repeated exposure to conditions (Mich. App., August 27, 2013) an arbitration action. The trial court held for which unintentionally causes injury, the insurer because none of the allegations damages, or destruction during the A homeowner-insured used a heat gun implicated in the arbitration triggered the policy period which was unexpected to defrost a frozen pipe near his washing policy for disparagement or using another’s by the insured. Any number of such machine resulting in a fire damaging both advertising ideas. The 9th Circuit upheld injuries, damages, or destruction the house and the plaintiff’s personal the ruling. property. The defendant-insurer refused resulting from a common cause or to pay the plaintiff’s insurance, claiming from exposure to substantially the the fraud exclusion for false statements same conditions shall be deemed to Priority of Coverage and misrepresentations regarding the result from one occurrence. fire and the damage to personal property. Judicial Economy Requires Set-Off The defendant lost at trial, but moved The primary carriers argued that since Rather Than Contribution Action by for a directed verdict based on what the the contaminated fuel was delivered by Non-Settling Carriers insurer thought evinced fraud at trial. The four separate barges, there were four General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. court disagreed, finding that reasonable occurrences. Excess carriers argued that Co. minds could differ regarding whether the there were 17 separate occurrences, not (E.D.Pa., September 6, 2013) insured knowingly and willfully made false four, because the language of the primary statements with the intent to defraud the policies indicated that each separate The plaintiff sued multiple defendant defendant. Therefore, it refused to overturn loading and delivery of the contaminated insurance carriers for a declaration of the jury verdict. fuel from the four barges would constitute excess insurance coverage for underlying a separate “occurrence.” The court held claims. Five of the defendant insurance that “the claims arising from the deliveries carriers settled, but seven litigants Occurrence/Trigger of of each barge where they are not causally remained. The plaintiff and the (defendant) Coverage related should be seen as separate settled carriers moved for dismissal with occurrences.” Finding that the primary prejudice of all claims asserted against the policies were clear and unambiguous, and Excess Carriers Entitled settled carriers. As the defendant insurance that liability did not occur as a result of the to Summary Judgment In carriers would be jointly and severally liable loading of the contaminated fuel, but as a Contaminated Petroleum Claim for the loss claimed, the question presented result of the delivery. As such, the court Axis Insurance et al. v. Buffalo Marine was whether the settled carriers were found each to be a separate occurrence, (S.D. Tex., September 12, 2013) protected from contribution claims by other and granted summary judgment to the defendants whose policies might also be excess carriers. This declaratory judgment action case required to pay for the plaintiff’s claim. The arises from the underlying contamination court found that the case of Koppers Co. v. of liquid petroleum cargo over the course Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 98 F.3d 1440 (3d of several months, from July 22, 2010, Cir. 1996), was controlling. The Koppers to January 22, 2011. The policyholder’s court noted that excess insurers were jointly primary and excess insurers disputed the and severally liable for the amount of the number of “accidents” or “occurrences” at loss in excess of the settling insurer’s pro issue under the two primary policies. The rata share of liability, but noted that judicial

CaseWatch: Insurance December 2013 Vol.15, No. 7

5 economy and settlement required that disclose, as the insurer — who had merely Professional Health Care there be a set off, rather than a subsequent issued a COI to its policyholder, not the Organizations Are Health Care contribution action. Thus, the court found hospital, as proof that it had insurance Providers, Too that the settled carriers were protected from — had no duty to disclose information to Baker v. Hedstrom contribution claims, and that the litigating the hospital given it was not in a fiduciary (New Mexico, September 5, 2013) defendants would have the right to assert a relationship or quasi-fiduciary relationship claim for an apportioned share set-off. with the hospital. The one-page COI The plaintiffs in three separate medical form simply summarized the policies and malpractice actions against professional No Summary Judgment Where expressly stated the insurance was subject organizations argued that New Mexico’s Trucking Company May Qualify as to all the terms, exclusions and conditions Medical Malpractice Act protected Insured Under Multiple Policies of the policies and that the COI was “issued only individual health care providers Canal Ins. Co. v. Great W. Cas. Co. as a matter of information only.” as defined by the act, rather than the (D. Minn., September 18, 2013) professional organizations formed by TPA’s Coverage Action Ripens such individual health care providers. The In its complaint, the plaintiff-insurer admitted Am. Prof’l Risk Servs., Inc. v. Gotham Ins. act, which was passed in response to a that it provided coverage, but alleged that Co. medical malpractice insurance crisis in such coverage was excess to the primary Ga. App., August 30, 2013) New Mexico, limits medical malpractice coverage provided by the defendant- damages exposure in exchange for medical insurer. The defendant moved for summary A professional liability policyholder sued practitioners paying a surcharge into a judgment, arguing that it had no coverage an insurer who denied coverage for two “patient’s compensation fund” and meeting obligations for liabilities arising from the actions arising from the policyholder’s other financial requirements with the underlying accident. The court denied the professional services as a third-party superintendent of insurance. The Supreme defendant’s motion for summary judgment administrator for a workers’ compensation Court of New Mexico held that because because there were genuine questions benefit plan that became insolvent. The individual professionals offering the type of fact as to whether the policyholder insurer denied coverage because the policy of professional medical services covered qualified as an insured. Specifically, there excluded coverage for claims or claim under the act may operate as a corporation were questions as to whether or not the expenses directly or indirectly involving or some other type of legal entity, such legal policyholder’s truck qualified as a hired the insolvency or receivership of any self- entities also qualify as health care providers vehicle. funded or partially self-funded benefit plan. under the act and are thus entitled to the The trial court had dismissed the coverage act’s medical malpractice protections. action as moot after it dismissed the two Professional Lines underlying actions on the grounds that “Agent” and “Employee” Are Not Insurance the Georgia Insurance Commissioner had Interchangeable Terms exclusive standing to pursue the underlying Rowland v. Diamond State Ins. Co. Certificate of Insurance Is Merely claims. On appeal, the appellate court (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2013) an FYI reversed the dismissal of certain claims in MultiCare Health Sys. v. Lexington Ins. Co. one of the underlying actions, specifically A plaintiff sought indemnity under a (9th Cir., August 28, 2013) claims for fraud held personally by trust foster care agency’s professional liability/ fund members against the policyholder, and commercial general liability policy on behalf A hospital sued an insurer for material thus also held that the coverage action was of a foster parent sued by the plaintiff in misrepresentation in providing a Certificate again ripe for determination. an underlying action for negligence arising of Insurance (COI) that confirmed that a from the death of a three-month-old foster medical staffing agency was the policyholder child in her care. The foster parent settled of professional malpractice insurance with the underlying action by entering into a a limit of $5 million but omitted the fact consent judgment in exchange for an that there was a $1 million self-insured assignment to the plaintiff of her rights, if retention. The court held that: (1) there was any, to bring a lawsuit against the insurer no affirmative misrepresentation as the fact pursuant to a Coblentz agreement. (This of the retention was simply not included; normally binds an insurer to a settlement and (2) there was no negligent failure to agreement/consent judgment negotiated

CaseWatch: Insurance December 2013 Vol.15, No. 7

6 between an insured and a claimant where: because she performed foster care in an agent of the policyholder, the policy (1) damages are covered by the policy; (2) furtherance of its operations, the court did not cover agents — only employees. the insurer wrongfully refused to defend; held that the foster parent was not an An employee is “a subspecies of agent” and (3) the settlement is reasonable and employee of the policyholder and thus was or a “narrower category than ‘agent,’” and made in good faith.) Although the plaintiff not insured under its policy. Therefore, the the terms are not interchangeable in an contended that the foster parent was insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify. insurance policy under Florida law. covered as an employee of the policyholder Even assuming that the foster parent was

Our Global Insurance Services team:

To learn more and view biographies, please click on the attorney’s name and be directed to www.GoldbergSegalla.com.

Chairs

Richard J. Cohen Daniel W. Gerber Thomas F. Segalla Chair, Professional Liability Co-Chair, Co-Chair, Co-Chair, Global Insurance Services Global Insurance Services Global Insurance Services

Partners

Sharon Angelino Helen A. Franzese Matthew S. Lerner Joanna M. Roberto Peter J. Biging Michael T. Glascott Matthew S. Marrone Michael S. Saltzman Christopher Bopst Anthony J. Golowski II Paul D. McCormick Tanguy de Schwarz Dennis J. Brady Eleni Iacovides Brian W. McElhenny Joseph J. Welter Sarah J. Delaney Michael P. Kandler Colleen M. Murphy James J. Wrynn Jennifer H. Feldscher Jeffrey L. Kingsley Clive O’Connell Jonathan S. Ziss Brendan T. Fitzpatrick Jonathan M. Kuller Joseph A. Oliva Special Counsel

Brian R. Biggie Edward K. Kitt Kenneth R. Lange Jonathan Schapp Marc W. Brown Sandra Snaden Kuwaye Mary O’Keefe Massey Associates

Richard J. Ahn Matthew D. Cabral Patrick B. Omilian Paul C. Steck Aaron J. Aisen Fallyn B. Cavalieri James M. Paulino II Joel J. Terragnoli Carrie P. Appler Jason L. Ederer Bryan D. Richmond Jensen Varghese Troy A. Bataille Marissa T. Jones Joanne J. Romero Clayton D. Waterman

Goldberg Segalla is a Best Practices law firm with offices in NewYork, London (where the firm operates as Goldberg Segalla Global LLP), Phila- delphia, Princeton, Hartford, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, White Plains, and Garden City. The Global Insurance Services Practice Group routinely handles matters of national and international importance for both domestic and foreign insurers, cedents, and reinsurers. This includes: comprehensive audit; policy reviews; regulatory advice; positioning a dispute for resolution at the business level (either through interim funding or non-waiver agreements); negotiations among counsel; mediation; or fully-involved arbitration or litigation. For more information on Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services Group, please contact Richard J. Cohen or Daniel W. Gerber.

CaseWatch Insurance December 2013 Vol. 15, No. 7

7 To subscribe to CaseWatch: Insurance and additional Goldberg Segalla publications, visit ‘Resources’ at GoldbergSegalla.com or scan the code to the left.

Read additional Publications

The Insurance Fraud Reporter Offices The Insurance Fraud Reporter is dedicated to the NEW YORK proposition that fighting insurance fraud is not just 780 Third Avenue, Suite 3100 | New York, New York 10017 a statutory mandate or moral imperative — it is a Office 646.292.8700 business imperative. For more information, contact LONDON Anthony J. Golowski II at agolowski@goldbergse- 65 Leadenhall Street | London EC3A 2AD galla.com Office +44.20.3371.5450

PHILADELPHIA Professional Liability Monthly 1700 Market Street, Suite 1418 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Professional Liability Monthly provides the latest Office 267.519.6800 information regarding news in the professional PRINCETON liability industry. For more information, contact 902 Carnegie Center, Suite 100 | Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Office 609.986.1300 Brian R. Biggie at [email protected] HARTFORD 100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100 | Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Reinsurance Review Office 860.760.3300 A regular summary of decisions affecting the insur- ance and reinsurance industry. For more BUFFALO 665 Main Street, Suite 400 | Buffalo, New York 14203 information, contact Jeffrey L. Kingsley at jkings- Office 716.566.5400 [email protected] ROCHESTER 2 State Street, Suite 1200 | Rochester, New York 14614 Bad Faith Focus Office 585.295.5400 A complement to CaseWatch: Insurance, Bad Faith SYRACUSE Focus provides timely summaries of and access 5786 Widewaters Parkway | Syracuse, New York 13214 to key bad faith litigation matters throughout the Office 315.413.5400 . For more infomration, contact Sarah ALBANY J. Delaney, editor of CaseWatch Insurance at sdel- 8 Southwoods Boulevard, Suite 300 | Albany, New York 12211 [email protected] Office 518.463.5400

WHITE PLAINS 11 Martine Avenue, Suite 750 | White Plains, New York 10606 Office 914.798.5400

GARDEN CITY 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 225 | Garden City, New York 11530 Office 516.281.9800

The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. It may not be applicable in all situ- ations and should not be acted upon without specific professional legal advice based on particular situations. © Copyright 2013 Goldberg Segalla. All Rights Reserved. The London office of Goldberg Segalla is operated by Goldberg Segalla Global LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC373080