Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP recently obtained a seven figure plus settlement on behalf of an insurer client in connection with a Negligence and Breach of Contract action against one of the Insurer’s Binding Agents.…
Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP recently obtained a seven figure plus settlement on behalf of an insurer client in connection with a Negligence and Breach of Contract action against one of the Insurer’s Binding Agents. The Binding Agent was authorized to bind and write contracts of insurance for certain classes and lines of business and types of risks on behalf of the Insurer, including excess/umbrella coverage. The insurer retained FMG to file an action against the Binding Agent for improperly underwriting, processing, handling, and billing a request for umbrella/excess coverage and issuing an insurance policy that failed to include language limiting coverage to that which was requested and paid for by the insured.
In April 2014, the Binding Agent was approached by an insurance broker seeking a competitive quote with respect to an application for Umbrella/Excess Insurance for a transportation client (the “Insured”). Through aggressive discovery requests and detailed deposition questioning, we were able to elicit documentary evidence and testimony showing the broker indisputably sought umbrella/excess coverage for only eleven specific vehicles owned or operated by the Insured. However, throughout the underwriting process, including the quoting process, the binding process, and the policy issuing process, the Binding Agent negligently failed to include appropriate language to limit the subject policy to the eleven specific vehicles set forth on the vehicle list provided by the Insured.
Indeed, we obtained damaging testimony from the Binding Agent’s Underwriter that he could have included a Designated Operations Limitation provision into the policy, which would have limited the policy’s coverage to the intended eleven vehicles. Rather than include the Designated Operations Limitation, the Underwriter included a Follow Form provision, which incorporated the coverage from the underlying policy, which in this case, covered the Insured’s entire fleet of over 140 vehicles. The Binding Agent’s cumulative failures ultimately resulted in the issuance of a policy covering many more vehicles – over 140 vehicles – then the eleven specified by the Insured, even though the Binding Agent only assessed the Insured a premium for eleven vehicles and billed the insured for eleven vehicles.
Compounding the Binding Agent’s failures further, during the underwriting process, and before the insurance policy was issued by the Binding Agent, a vehicle operated by the Insured was involved in a serious accident resulting in several individuals being significantly injured and three others killed. Although the Binding Agent was aware the vehicle involved in the accident was not designated by the Insured as one of the eleven for which the Insured sought excess coverage, the Binding Agent failed to bring this to the attention of the Insurer for over two years.
As a result of the Binding Agent’s negligence, the Insurer was required to provide insurance coverage to the Insured for the losses arising out of the aforementioned fatal accident, and for the compensatory damages in the litigation filed as a result of the accident. When the Insurer demanded reimbursement from the Binding Agent, after tendering the policy limits of the Umbrella/Excess Insurance policy to the injured plaintiffs and the estates of the deceased plaintiffs, for the costs incurred as a result of the Binding Agent’s errors, the Binding Agent rejected the demand, causing the Insurer to seek redress through litigation.
At the Settlement Conference in federal court, facing the plethora of facts we elicited in discovery showing its failures in underwriting the subject policy, the Binding Agent acknowledged its errors and omissions, and agreed to offer a significant portion of the damages sought in order to resolve the matter.
Paul Piantino, Partner and Chair of the Newark Office and Zachary Danner, Senior Counsel from the Cherry Hill Office, handled the litigation for FMG.
Summary Judgment Obtained in Legal Malpractice Dispute in Pennsylvania
FMG Attorneys Meaghan Mahon and Patrick Cosgrove prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas on a legal malpractice claim concerning an underlying divorce settlement. The matter pertained…
Summary Judgment Win in Ohio Sovereign Immunity Dispute
FMG Attorneys Doug Holthus and Cara Wright obtained summary judgment in favor of the City of Kenton and its police officer in a case arising from a traffic crash that occurred when the police officer…
Complete Dismissal Obtained in Utah Data Breach Class Action
FMG attorneys Justin Boron, Kevin Ringel and Danielle Ocampo successfully obtained a dismissal on all counts in a data breach class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries as a result of a data breach…
Summary Judgment Secured in Ohio Police K9 Dog Bite Dispute
FMG attorneys Doug Holthus and Cara Wright obtained summary judgment in favor of the City of Kenton and a city police officer in a case involving a Plaintiff that was bitten by a police K9.…
Summary Judgment Obtained in Ohio First Amendment Retaliation Dispute
FMG Attorneys Doug Holthus and Cara Wright obtained summary judgment for their police officer client in a case alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Plaintiff claimed that our client and…
Summary Judgment Win in Kentucky Insurance Coverage Dispute
FMG attorneys Barry M. Miller, Lucas R. Harrison and Sean C. Harrison prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of a nationwide…
Favorable Result Obtained in Florida Professional Liability Matter
FMG attorneys Robert Klein and Chris Fraga represented a Florida attorney in responding to a complaint to the Florida Bar’s Attorney/Consumer Assistance Program, which included allegations that the client had improperly threatened a pro se Plaintiff…
Summary Judgment on Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims in Florida
FMG Attorneys Jessica Farrelly and Jessica Cauley prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a Broward County, Florida court on claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against their client, a substance abuse…
FMG Secures Summary Judgment Win Dismissing Defamation Claim in Florida
FMG attorney Alex Diaz prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in Broward County, Florida (Fort Lauderdale). A plaintiff engaged in ongoing divorce proceedings filed a lawsuit against his wife’s former divorce attorney claiming that…
FMG’s Prelitigation Advice & Counsel Secures Beneficial Settlement for Client
FMG attorneys Daniel Parker Jett and Kelly Haas successfully addressed a case involving a 57-year-old senior executive who threatened our client with a suit on grounds of age discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate a…
FMG Secures Motion to Dismiss in Plymouth Superior Court
Jason Haltiwanger v. Christopher Hemenway, et al. Plymouth Superior Court, C. A. No. 2483-CV-00254 FMG attorneys Will Covino and Chris Fulmer successfully prevailed on a motion to dismiss in the Plymouth Superior Court to extricate…
FMG Obtains Summary Judgment on Coverage Dispute for Insurer in Illinois Federal Court
FMG attorney, Jonathan L. Schwartz, prevailed on summary judgment in favor of National Fire & Marine Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before a federal judge. As background,…